How have the courts treated a request for a voir dire to determine whether any juror had heard or read anything prejudicial?

Finally, appellant argues that the trial judge erred on the last day of trial in disposing of a request for a voir dire to determine whether any juror had, during the overnight recess, heard or read anything prejudicial apparently an unrelated skyjacking had been widely reported in the media. The request was made by the Government and apparently joined in by the defense. The trial judge was concerned, among other things, that a juror's overly detailed response might needlessly insert prejudice where none had genuinely existed before.⁷ In the colloquy at the bench, defense counsel requested the court "to ask a simple question if they have read anything on this, period, without referring to anything?" The judge then put the general question set forth in the margin.⁸ When there was no affirmative response from the jurors, the judge allowed the trial to proceed, and defense counsel offered no objection. On this record, the judge acted within his discretion; we perceive no error, much less plain error. See United States v. Ragland, 375 F.2d 471, 475-476 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 925, 88 S.Ct. 860, 19 L.Ed. 2d 987 (1968).

Judgment affirmed.