P.

DISCUSSION

After discussing at length the unquestioned premise that the trial court had proper cause to excuse Juror No. 1, defendants both assert the trial court was aware of facts that suggested a likelihood that Juror No. 1 tainted other members of the jury with improper biases and therefore breached its duty to investigate sua sponte (or trial counsel were ineffective for failing to request the court to undertake an investigation). (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 702-703 (Fuiava).) They contend a presumption of prejudice arises as a result and we must reverse the judgment because the People cannot rebut it. (People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 192-193.)

This argument is based on speculation. The evidence shows only that Juror No. 1 shared her biases with people who were not members of her jury. There is an absence of any evidence that she spoke on the same topic with Juror No. 8 or anyone else on the jury in this case. (Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 702 [no evidence that anyone other than excused juror had seen purported spectator misconduct, or that it had unsettled them as

3 well]; People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 943 [must be evidence of bias;…