Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Defense Counsel's Failure to Request and Voir Dire Separate Juries

Text: Defendant argues that he was entitled to separate juries at the guilt and penalty phases and that his trial counsel was incompetent for not requesting separate juries. He does not argue that the facts or circumstances of this case compelled the empaneling of separate juries. Rather, he argues generally that separate juries in death penalty cases are necessary to permit the defense to use voir dire to expose penalty phase bias on the part of prospective jurors by questioning them about uncharged crimes, without at the same time creating a bias against the defendant at the guilt phase by such questioning. We have rejected this contention in the past. ( People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 140, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) Defendant has no right to be tried by separate juries ( ibid.) or to voir dire one way for the guilt phase and another way for the penalty phase ( People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 267-268, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897).