Does the Attorney General have any grounds to dismiss a claim of voir dire on an appeal based on race bias?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Taylor, 5 Cal.App.4th 1299, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 676 (Cal. App. 1992):
Most significantly, neither attorney ever asked the court to pose further questions to any prospective juror or to the entire panel, or suggested a [5 Cal.App.4th 1312] subject to further inquiry for anyone. The Attorney General argues that the failure of the defense to do so effects a waiver of any complaint about voir dire on this appeal. That is a credible argument. (See People v. Woods (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1055, 277 Cal.Rptr. 269, and authority cited.) Nevertheless, we review the substance of defendant's claim in light of the fact that the new procedure applied by the court was based on a law that became effective only days before, and in order to foreclose a collateral challenge based on a claim of inadequate representation by counsel. (See People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 682, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.)
Page 684
D. Voir Dire on Racial Bias
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
