Can juror No. 2 remain on the jury?

Here, the trial court determined juror No. 2 was able to be impartial by hearing the evidence and deliberating with other jurors before making up his mind about the verdict. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding. Although juror No. 2 did express prejudgment of the case, this juror's misgivings appeared to arise out of a deep sense he "just want[ed] to be fair." Upon further questioning by the trial court and defense counsel, juror No. 2 unequivocally stated he could and would be fair to all parties. When the trial court followed up with juror No. 2 on the third day of trial, the juror was certain he could and would be fair to all parties. On this basis, the trial court was entitled to find juror No. 2's assurances of impartiality to be credible. (People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 122.) Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in allowing juror No. 2 to remain on the jury.