California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Morris, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 803, 239 Cal.App.4th 276 (Cal. App. 2015):
2 Nothing in this opinion is meant to preclude the trial court from questioning the still-sitting jurors to determine the nature and extent of their relationship with a juror who is excused so as to decide the appropriate remedy concerning his or her testimony at trial, as was the case in Turner v. Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546. Here, neither party requested the court to make such an inquiry. Instead, defense counsel requested the juror be excused and the prosecutor did not object.
2 Nothing in this opinion is meant to preclude the trial court from questioning the still-sitting jurors to determine the nature and extent of their relationship with a juror who is excused so as to decide the appropriate remedy concerning his or her testimony at trial, as was the case in Turner v. Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546. Here, neither party requested the court to make such an inquiry. Instead, defense counsel requested the juror be excused and the prosecutor did not object.
3 The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. (Turner v. Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. at pp. 471472, 85 S.Ct. 546.)
3 The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. (Turner v. Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. at pp. 471472, 85 S.Ct. 546.)
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.