California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Roldan, 110 P.3d 289, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360, 35 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2005):
In a related claim, defendant contends the trial court's voir dire of prospective jurors "unfairly limited the amount of information that defense counsel received." As with the decision not to sequester the jurors, however, defendant failed to preserve this issue by objecting. (People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 855-856, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 602, 69 P.3d 446.) Even assuming the issue were properly before us, defendant fails to explain what type of information was missing or how the detailed jury questionnaires and follow-up questions from the bench were inadequate. Accordingly, the claim is meritless.
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.