Does a trial judge have to consider the entire record of voir dire for a Wheeler motion?

In People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 5 Cal.Rptr .2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315, we did not "limit[ ] our review ... solely to counsel's presentation at the time of the motion. This is because other circumstances might support the finding of a prima facie case even though a defendant's showing [was itself inadequate]. Nor should the trial court blind itself to everything except defense counsel's presentation. Indeed, we have emphasized that such rulings require trial judges to consider `all the circumstances of the case' [citation] and call upon judges' `"powers of observation, their understanding of trial techniques, and their broad judicial experience." `[Citations.] The trial judge in this case, for example, obviously knew that defendant belonged to the same group as the challenged jurors and that his victims did not. Clearly these are relevant factors [citation], and they were apparent to the trial court even though defendant did not mention them during his Wheeler motion." (Id. at p. 1155, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315.) "For these reasons," we said, "when a trial court denies a Wheeler motion without finding a prima facie case of group bias the reviewing court considers the entire record of voir dire." (Id. at p. 1155, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315.) Certainly, the trial court should consider obvious matters, and it can consider any other circumstances it finds relevant in the particular case. But, midtrial, we cannot expect, and do not demand, trial courts to engage sua sponte in the sort of comparative juror analysis that appellate lawyers and courts can do after scouring the often-lengthy appellate record during the appeal. And, given the inability of reviewing courts to reliably conduct such analysis on a cold

[1 Cal.Rptr.3d 18]

record, those courts are not required to do so for the first time on appeal.

[1 Cal.Rptr.3d 18]