P v. LINDER,
Filed 5/4/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
COPY
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DUANE PEYTON LINDER, Defendant and Appellant. |
C048803
(Super. Ct. No. 03F08589)
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Talmadge R. Jones, J. Affirmed with directions.
Cara DeVito, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, John G. McLean, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Story continued from Part I ……………
This case is entirely distinguishable from Mach, supra, 137 F.3d 630, the federal case on which defendant relies. In Mach, the defendant, charged with a sex offense against a child, argued the jury was tainted after a prospective juror, who was a social worker with the state's child protective services, stated during voir dire that she would have a difficult time being impartial given her line of work and that sexual assault had been confirmed in every case in which one of her clients reported such an assault. (Id. at p. 632.) The district judge continued to question the prospective juror and elicited at least three more statements â€
