What is the current state of the law on peremptory questioning of a potential juror?

[29 Cal.3d 402] Our courts have become increasingly aware that bias often deceives its host by distorting his view not only of the world around him, but also of himself. ² Hence although we must presume that a potential juror is responding in good faith when he asserts broadly that he can judge the case impartially (People v. Preston (1973) 9 Cal.3d 308, 313, 107 Cal.Rptr. 300, 508 P.2d 300), further interrogation may reveal bias of which he is unaware or which, because of his impaired objectivity, he unreasonably believes he can overcome. ³ And although his protestations of impartiality may immunize him from a challenge for cause (see Pen.Code, 1076), they should not foreclose further reasonable questioning that might expose bias on which prudent counsel would base a peremptory challenge. For instance, although a juror has asserted his willingness

Page 322

This court observed in People v. Crowe, supra (8 Cal.3d at p. 831, fn. 31, 106 Cal.Rptr. 369, 506 P.2d 193), that "Although each of the jurors asserted that he knew of no reason why he could not serve as an impartial juror, such assertions do not eliminate the necessity for additional reasonable inquiry to uncover con[29 Cal.3d 403] cealed or subtle bias.... (P) ... a biased juror may be unwilling to confess that bias, openly, and ... questions to which there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer may be less likely to reveal such bias than more open-ended questions." ⁴ To foreclose such an open-ended question simply because it does not directly inquire about prejudice sufficient to sustain a challenge for cause is unnecessarily and unrealistically to limit counsel's opportunity to secure an impartial jury.