California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Wall, 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 861, 3 Cal.5th 1048, 404 P.3d 1209 (Cal. 2017):
Wall also argues that he was prejudiced by his absence during jury selection and the swearing-in of the jury because his presence "was essential ... so that appellant, his counsel and the court could observe and take into account the demeanor of the prospective jurors, as they in turn observed appellant." Although a defendant's presence may have a psychological impact on the jury at certain stages of trial, separate and apart from any assistance the defendant might offer his counsel (see, e.g., Larson v. Tansy (10th Cir. 1990) 911 F.2d 392, 395396 ), we find no reasonable probability in this case that a different jury would have been chosen or that the jury chosen would have reached a different verdict had Wall been present during the selection and empaneling of the jury. On August 11, before the exercise of peremptory challenges, the trial court advised the jurors that Wall wished to be present but was unable to due to a medical emergency. We can reasonably conclude that the jurors attributed his absence from the short swearing-in session the next day to the same medical emergency. It is true that the court gave no similar advisement to the jury on the afternoon of August 5. But absent specific allegations of prejudiceand Wall has stated noneany harm arising from the voir dire of six prospective jurors outside of Wall's presence that afternoon is merely speculative. Moreover,
[224 Cal.Rptr.3d 873]
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.