The People v. Jones CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 2013C071902California2,421 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

I. The Reaction of the Prospective Jurors Did Not Mandate Dismissing the Panel

A. The Incident and the Court’s Response The parties agreed that before commencing voir dire each would make “mini opening statements.” Accordingly, the prosecutor began sketching out her case. “[The victim] is now a young woman. However, when she was a young child she was molested by her uncle, the defendant . . . . [¶] You will hear that the defendant went and stayed with [the victim‟s] mother in Cottonwood for a period of time. His bedroom was up in

1 Although the terms are frequently used interchangeably, the Supreme Court has designated pool as the master list of potential jurors assembled from source lists, venire as the subgroup of the pool assembled at the courthouse, and panel as the subgroup of the venire assigned to a courtroom for voir dire in a particular case. (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 520, fn. 3; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 194 [defining terms “ „[m]aster list,‟ ” “ „[j]uror pool,‟ ” and “ „[t]rial jury panel‟ ”].)

2 the attic, and one evening he asked [the victim] to take a nap with him. During the course of that evening, he kissed her on the mouth using tongue. He…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.