The opinion
Opinion
GEORGE, C. J.
Following the guilt phase of a capital trial, in which defendant was represented by two defense counsel, a jury found defendant Daniel Steven Jenkins guilty, among other charges, of the first degree murder of and conspiracy to murder Thomas Williams (Pen. Code, §§ 182, 187), 1 and of the attempted murder of George Carpenter (§§ 187, 664). The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that Williams was a peace officer who was killed intentionally in retaliation for the performance of his official duties. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(7).) At the penalty phase, in which defendant primarily represented himself, the jury fixed the penalty at death. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial and for modification of the verdict, and imposed a sentence of death.
*931 This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed in its entirety.
I. Facts
A. Guilt Phase Evidence
1. Prosecution case
The prosecution’s evidence demonstrated that defendant planned and committed the crimes at issue in this proceeding, involving the attempted murder of George Carpenter and the conspiracy to murder and actual murder of Los Angeles Police Department Detective Thomas Williams, because in a trial for robbery Carpenter (as the robbery victim) was the principal prosecution witness against defendant and Williams was the investigating officer.
The robbery of Carpenter occurred in North Hollywood in October 1984, while Carpenter and another man were en route to deposit the day’s business receipts. Carpenter supplied the police with a license number of the automobile in which the two men who had robbed him were driving, and that vehicle was traced to defendant. Defendant admitted his involvement to one of his criminal cohorts but declared his innocence to Detective Williams. Carpenter positively identified defendant, both to Williams and again at the preliminary hearing, as one of the two assailants.
a. Attempted murder of George Carpenter
Defendant made two attempts to have Carpenter tilled. First, he hired Jeffrey Bryant and Todd Shaw to till Carpenter, but called off the attempt when Shaw failed to follow his precise instructions. Jeffrey Bryant, testifying under a grant of immunity, recounted that defendant commented, “no witness, no case.” On July 4, 1985, at defendant’s behest, Anthony Bryant shot Carpenter, while defendant and Jeffrey Bryant established an alibi for defendant. The prosecution’s evidence established that Carpenter was dining in a restaurant when a man shot him in the head, torso, and legs. After multiple surgeries, Carpenter was released from the hospital and fled the area. Jeffrey testified that he had heard Anthony admit shooting Carpenter. Jeffrey also testified that he observed defendant pay Anthony for the shooting, that he, Jeffrey, had disposed of the stolen automobile used in the shooting, and that defendant had disposed of the weapon given by defendant to Anthony to perform the shooting. Another witness, an acquaintance of defendant’s named Elihue Broomfield, testified that defendant told him he *932 had hired men to shoot Carpenter in a Hollywood bar, but that despite multiple gunshot wounds, Carpenter had survived. The prosecution also introduced telephone company records establishing contact between defendant, Shaw, and Anthony and Jeffrey Bryant prior to the shooting.
b. Murder of Detective Williams
Detective Williams was killed in a spray of gunfire in front of his son’s daycare center in the early evening of October 31, 1985. Defendant (along with codefendants Duane Moody, Ruben Moss, Voltaire Williams, David Bentley, and Reecy Cooper) was charged with the murder of Detective Williams and with conspiracy to murder Williams. 2
The evidence regarding defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy and the murder of Detective Williams came primarily from the testimony of immunized witnesses—David Bentley, Jeffrey Bryant, Aladran Hunter, and Tyrone Hicks. Their testimony, in addition to testimony from persons who witnessed the shooting, or to whom defendant made incriminating statements, or who were involved in the disposal of the murder weapon, as well as ballistics evidence and telephone records, established that defendant directed various plans for others to kill Williams, and ultimately that defendant himself killed Williams.
Defendant solicited Jeffrey Bryant to murder Williams, telling him that he wished to prevent Williams’s testimony at the Carpenter robbery trial. Defendant engaged in some planning activity with Bryant, but when Bryant found out Williams was not a security guard, as defendant had declared, but instead was a police officer, Bryant announced he would not participate.
On October 24, 1985, codefendant Voltaire Williams solicited Aladran Hunter to perform the murder, for the announced purpose of preventing the detective’s testimony in court. On October 25, 1985, Voltaire drove with Hunter to defendant’s home. Voltaire entered the residence and returned with a weapon. Voltaire got into an automobile identified by a witness to the shooting of the detective as being similar to the vehicle from which the shots were fired. Hunter followed Voltaire to a location a few blocks past a school and was instructed by Voltaire to wait for an orange-and-white Toyota pickup track with a camper shell on the back. Voltaire instructed Hunter to drive by the pickup truck and shoot the intended victim in the head after the latter, whom he described, had picked up his child from the school. Voltaire *933 stated he needed to get instructions from defendant regarding when the victim would arrive. Voltaire then retrieved the weapon from his automobile and gave it to Hunter.
Hunter found himself unable to shoot the victim when he arrived. Hunter met Voltaire later in the evening, informing him that he had not carried out the shooting and observing that he thought the intended victim was a police officer and not a security guard.
Two persons who lived near the Faith Baptist Church School in Canoga Park, where the shooting of Detective Williams occurred, testified that on October 25, 1985, they observed codefendants Moody and Moss in an automobile parked near the school. A third man seated in the rear of the vehicle may have been defendant.
Defendant also approached David Bentley two or three weeks before Halloween in 1985, for assistance in finding a contract killer. Bentley solicited Tyrone Hicks, who conferred with Moss, Bentley, and defendant regarding terms. Defendant directed Hicks to come to his home.
Two or three days before Halloween in 1985, Moss, Cooper, and Bentley picked up Hicks, informing him they were going to show him what he was supposed to do. When the men arrived at defendant’s home, Hicks was introduced to defendant as the driver.
Defendant went with Bentley to a lookout point and instructed him to look for a small orange Toyota or Datsun truck with a camper shell on it, stating that the man in the truck was the person he wanted to have killed, and that Bentley was to contact Moss when Bentley saw the truck and inform him of the direction the truck was headed.
Bentley waited 20 minutes, did not see the truck, and received no response when he activated Moss’s pager.
In the meantime, Moss had driven Hicks and Cooper to the church school, where he gave them instructions regarding the murder. While they waited, Moss stated that previous attempts on the victim’s life had failed, in one case because the gunman had lost his nerve.
Hicks observed the orange-and-white truck arrive at the school, but it departed before the plan could be executed. Defendant later berated Moss, and complained that now the victim would be able to testify against him the following day. Moss assured him they would kill the victim before then.
*934 On the way home, Bentley informed Hicks that it was improbable that defendant would pay him more than a few hundred dollars for his participation in the crime. Hicks announced his reluctance to participate further.
An acquaintance of Hicks’s recalled that Hicks had said to him that he was part of a plan to shoot a person near a school, that (as Hicks had testified) he had been picked up in a limousine and had seen the victim and the cars that were to be used, but that he had gotten scared. Additionally, Hicks’s girlfriend recalled that Hicks had told her the plan was to kill a police officer, and that he had been shown where the officer picked up his son after school. Hicks told her he was supposed to be the driver, but that when the victim arrived from an unexpected direction, they abandoned the plan.
Telephone records disclosed prolific telephone contact between the homes, residences, and pager numbers of Bentley, Moss, Cooper, Moody, and Voltaire Williams in the week preceding October 31, 1985. When defendant’s briefcase subsequently was seized from his sister’s home, it contained notations of the names and telephone numbers of Hicks, Moody, and Moss, as well as Voltaire Williams’s telephone number and the names Tyrone and Reecy.
The prosecution’s evidence established that defendant ultimately took matters into his own hands. As noted, in October 1985, defendant was on trial for the robbery of Carpenter, and Detective Williams, as investigating officer, sat at counsel table during the trial. Defendant paid his friend Steve Ballow a nominal sum to testify in his behalf on October 30, 1985, and to provide defendant with a false alibi at the trial. Defendant explained to Ballow that he had not committed the robbery but had lent his car to a cousin who had committed the offense. He was upset about the trial and said he wished the police officer were dead. Ballow observed that Cooper, Moody, and Moss accompanied defendant to and from court, and Moody and Moss were detailed to drive Ballow home.
Elihue Broomfield, an acquaintance of defendant’s from many years before, was at the courthouse on October 31, 1985, and happened to observe defendant’s trial. Defendant approached him and invited him to go home with him during the lunch break. Defendant told Broomfield that he had not committed the robbery and that he had been set up by Detective Williams and Carpenter, but that defendant’s car had been used in the robbery. Defendant stated he would not tolerate being set up by a police officer and would not incur a conviction without securing revenge. Defendant said he would “get” the officer and would have someone armed with a weapon “get” *935 Detective Williams that evening. He said he had had Williams followed and knew his routine. He showed Broomfield a weapon that appeared to be an Uzi and said it fired 10 to 20 rounds per second in rapid succession. He said he had more than one contract killer to do the job. Broomfield subsequently identified the murder weapon as similar to the gun that defendant showed him.
While they were at defendant’s home, defendant made a telephone call, during which Broomfield overheard defendant say that everybody had to be together at 1600 hours or “it” would not work. Over lunch, defendant said he could not bear to be in jail while the man who had set him up would be at a picnic enjoying life. He said he would eliminate him. Upon their return to the San Fernando courthouse, Broomfield overheard defendant on the phone complaining that someone could not be located, and stating that he and others had to be at his home at a certain time and that “it” had to occur about 4:00 o’clock. Broomfield went to testify in another case around 3:00 or 3:30 that afternoon, and then he and defendant left the courthouse together. Telephone records corroborated Broomfield’s testimony regarding defendant’s telephone contacts.
Detective Williams signed his son out of the Faith Baptist Church School at 5:40 p.m. and was gunned down as he and his son approached their parked vehicle—an orange pickup truck with a camper shell. Williams was hit by eight bullets, two of which proved fatal. His truck also was riddled with bullets, as were nearby walls and even the interior of the school structure.
A woman who was present picking up her son from the school shortly before 6:00 p.m. on October 31, 1985, heard the gunfire. The boy reported that it sounded like a machine gun. The mother and child took cover, but eventually emerged to see Detective Williams slumped against his vehicle with his son weeping nearby. Other witnesses heard the gunfire and observed the victim’s body slumped against the truck. The police received the first call reporting the killing at 5:44 p.m.
Various witnesses saw a grayish automobile go up and down the street in front of the school several times at approximately 5:30 p.m. that evening. One of these witnesses heard the gunfire and saw the same vehicle come up the street and rapidly accelerate to 60 or 65 miles per hour. The brother of this witness approached the vehicle to advise the driver that his headlights were not on. The witness was not certain whether the driver—apparently the sole occupant—was African-American, Hispanic, or White, though he reported to the police that the driver was White.
A person on the grounds of the Faith Baptist School on the evening of the murder heard what he thought were firecrackers exploding and saw an *936 Oldsmobile, possibly white, speeding down the street in front of the property with its lights off. A husband and wife driving near the school after 5:30 p.m. on October 31 saw a light-colored full-size automobile, possibly a Chevrolet or Oldsmobile, speeding away at between 45 and 60 miles per hour. When they arrived at the school, they observed Detective Williams slumped against his truck, dead. The woman thought the vehicle she had seen speeding away resembled a photograph of the automobile identified as the one defendant had been using with Broomfield that same day. This automobile was a two-door blue-and-white Oldsmobile that had been stolen in Sepulveda on October 22, 1985. The automobile had been parked for an extended period before October 31, 1985, in a residential neighborhood in Canoga Park. A resident noted the license number and testified that the automobile was parked on the street on the morning of the murder, but that when she returned from work around 5:00 p.m., it was gone. When the automobile was recovered (after a tip from codefendant Moody) on November 7, 1985, the ledge of the driver’s door was covered in gunshot residue of the type that the murder weapon emitted profusely. The front part of the automobile also contained nine expended shell casings.
Further evidence recovered in the period following the crime was offered to prove defendant’s culpability for the shooting. Defendant announced to David Bentley on the evening of October 31, 1985, that he “got down hisself and . . . took care of that ass hisself [sic].” When Bentley asked what he meant, defendant said Bentley would see it on the news that evening.
At defendant’s request, Bentley went to defendant’s home about 8:00 p.m. Defendant appeared excited and repeated that he had “taken care of that ass.” While Bentley worked to repair Moody’s automobile, he heard defendant tell Moody he was surprised at how many shots the Uzi had fired with one light pull of the trigger. Defendant stated he had test-fired the Uzi in his backyard earlier that day. Defendant repeated that he “got that ass myself. I had to do it. I mean. I had to do it myself. Guys won’t take care of business. I had to take care of this . . . myself.”
Ali Woodson received a telephone call from his friend Moody between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on October 31, 1985. A couple of hours later, Moody arrived at.Woodson’s apartment. He seemed disturbed and said he wanted to drop off some skates. He was carrying a large green duffel bag, which Woodson directed him to place in the closet. This testimony was confirmed by Mrs. Woodson. A few days later, Moody’s girlfriend telephoned Ali Woodson and told him to take everything out of the duffel bag except the Uzi and that the police were on the way. Woodson examined the duffel bag, which contained several weapons, including a modified Mac *937 M-10 assault pistol and a clip for the pistol. He turned the duffel bag and gun over to the police. Ballistics evidence indicated that the pistol was the murder weapon.
Arvie Carroll, who had been convicted of burglary and escape, became acquainted with defendant while both men were incarcerated in the Los Angeles County jail. Defendant told him that he had shot Detective Williams several times and then sped away to a Kmart store and talked to a salesperson in order to establish an alibi. Defendant told Carroll that he then returned home, where he gave Moody the murder weapon. Defendant announced that he was going to place the blame for the shooting on Moody. Defendant explained that he had shot Detective Williams because Williams had arrested him. He described the details of the shooting, noting how the body had jerked while he fired, and stating that his car stalled while he was trying to get away, so he “pumped some more bullets into his white ass,” knowing that the officer already was dead. He also stated he would have killed the officer’s son if he had come into the line of fire, because the child probably would grow up to be a police officer like his father. Carroll stated that defendant smiled and laughed as he related his story.
David Bentley testified that he spoke with Reecy Cooper about the crime while they were incarcerated together, and that Cooper said that he was in the car and at the house, because he was supposed to be the shooter, but that he became frightened and did not want to do the shooting.
In anticipation of a possible alibi defense mentioned by several witnesses, involving defendant’s presence at a Kmart store soon after the shooting, a police officer testified that he had driven the route from the San Fernando courthouse, to defendant’s home on Cantara street, to the Faith Baptist Church School in Canoga Park, and found that defendant could have committed the murder and still arrived at the Kmart at the time indicated by potential alibi witnesses.
Telephone records confirmed that there was telephone contact between the telephone numbers of defendant, Moss, Cooper, Bentley, Hicks, and Moody during the afternoon and evening of October 31, 1985. The briefcase seized from defendant’s sister’s home contained a piece of paper bearing Elihue Broomfield’s telephone number.
2. Defense case
Defendant presented evidence to support his claim that codefendant Moody had killed Detective Williams. Moody was implicated in the Carpenter robbery and also had been under investigation by Detective Williams in *938 connection with another crime. Prosecution evidence tied Moody to the murder weapon, and defense evidence suggested that police investigation had focused on Moody. A person who met Moody in October 1985 stated that Moody had said at the time that he was an alibi witness in a friend’s robbery trial, that an officer was a key witness in the case, and that Moody had expressed his own resolve to “get” the officer. Another witness testified that Moody had stated he had committed the Carpenter robbery, and that defendant had not been involved. The defense also presented evidence indicating that Moody would have been able to get to the murder scene on October 31, 1985, in time to commit the murder.
Defendant also presented evidence suggesting that because he was aware of police surveillance during the period leading up to the homicide, and because he was resigned to going to prison for the Carpenter robbery and was aware that Detective Williams was not a significant witness in the Carpenter robbery trial, he would not have undertaken to murder Detective Williams. Police records indicated defendant was under surveillance from late August 1985 until September 19, 1985, and that surveillance resumed on October 31, 1985, after the homicide. Defendant presented evidence that police records were faulty and that the surveillance may have continued between September 19, 1995, and the time of the homicide. In addition, many friends, neighbors, and relatives of defendant’s related either that they observed apparent surveillance of defendant or that defendant had expressed awareness of and great concern regarding police surveillance that continued until the time of the homicide.
The lawyer who represented defendant in the Carpenter robbery trial testified that he did not anticipate that Detective Williams would testify against his client; that although defendant denied responsibility for the robbery, he seemed resigned to being convicted and going to prison for it; and that defendant appeared surprised when counsel informed defendant that Detective Williams had been killed.
Defendant also presented alibi evidence. Although David Bentley was called as a prosecution witness, his testimony included a recollection that he and defendant had gone to a gas station on the evening of October 31, 1985, to work on Moody’s automobile. He recalled that he and gas station employees amused themselves by “burning rubber” with their automobiles at the rear of the station. Defendant called other witnesses to confirm the event, although they were not precise about the date it had occurred.
Defendant also presented evidence in support of the theory that the police had acted dishonestly in preparing the case against him. There were discrepancies in police records regarding when and where the police surveillance of *939 defendant had taken place. Defendant noted that statements and descriptions offered by witnesses changed in some respects after contact with police interviewers. Canale, a witness relied upon by the prosecution early in the case—but not at trial—added incriminating details to his account of inculpatory statements made by Moody after various contacts with law enforcement officers. Canale also made inconsistent statements about whether he had warned the police about Moody’s statements regarding the forthcoming crime before the crime occurred. Telephone records indicated Canale had telephoned the Norwalk sheriff’s station twice on October 24, remaining on the telephone for 12 and 21 minutes, respectively. The officers named by Canale denied being informed by Canale about his conversation with Moody. Canale was a regular informant who was interested in receiving a reward or other benefit in return for his information.
In addition, three of the witnesses who testified that they had seen an automobile, such as the one used by the shooter, near the scene of the crime immediately before and after the shooting, originally told the police that the driver involved in the shooting was White or Hispanic. Defendant is African-American. A dermatologist testified that he was unaware of any ointment or solution that could be applied to an African-American person’s face to make it appear light or whiter.
Further evidence called into question the reliability of certain prosecution witnesses. Sidney Woodson testified he had known Jeffrey Bryant for years, that Bryant was a cocaine dealer, and that Woodson had seen Bryant use cocaine five to 10 times a day. Bryant also was charged with several robberies in 1987, and his probation officer was of the opinion he should be sentenced to state prison if found guilty. The probation officer recalled that Bryant had denied responsibility for the 1987 robberies, but Bryant testified that he believed he had admitted responsibility for one robbery. Elihue Broomfield’s brother-in-law testified that Broomfield had an extremely poor reputation for honesty in the community. Broomfield had been on probation for felony hit and run in 1979, and had substantially delayed paying the restitution ordered in that case. Prosecution witness Steven Ballow made inconsistent statements to the police concerning his ride to the courthouse with defendant on the morning of October 31, 1985. Bentley admitted being a drug dealer who sold controlled substances to Hicks. Hicks admitted extensive drug abuse around the time of the crimes.
Hunter admitted being an alcoholic and using cocaine during the relevant period. Hunter, Hicks, Bentley, and Bryant all faced sentencing for criminal offenses when they testified for the prosecution.
Defendant presented evidence that prosecution witness Arvie Carroll may have had a motive to injure defendant. Defendant’s brother testified that *940 during defendant’s pretrial incarceration in the county jail, someone with a name like Carroll telephoned him to say that defendant wanted the brother to bring $200 to the jail and put it in Carroll’s jail account. Defendant told his brother he had never made any such request. Another witness, an inmate in the county jail, testified that Arvie Carroll told him that he was going to try to get defendant’s brother to put money in Carroll’s jail account. The witness later heard defendant and Carroll in a heated argument regarding Carroll’s efforts to get money from defendant’s brother.
Defendant presented the testimony of an expert that called into question the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony in general. He also presented evidence that cast doubt on details of the prosecution case, such as evidence that although a prosecution expert believed the shooter had held the automatic pistol in his right hand, defendant was left-handed.
The jury found defendant guilty of murder and found true an allegation that in the commission of the crime, a principal was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a).) The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that Williams was a peace officer who intentionally was killed in retaliation for the performance of his official duties. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(7).) The jury found not true the allegations that Williams was a witness to a crime who was intentionally killed in retaliation for his testimony (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(10)), and that defendant intentionally killed the victim while lying in wait. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15).)
The jury also found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit the murder of Thomas Williams. (§§ 182, 187.) The jury also found defendant guilty of the attempted murder of George Carpenter. (§§ 187, 664.)
B: Penally Phase Evidence
1. Prosecution case
The prosecution presented evidence that defendant had been convicted of two counts of receiving stolen property and was placed on probation on condition he spend one year in the county jail. Defendant also had been convicted of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on Horace Monroe, Jr. Defendant pleaded guilty to this offense and was placed on probation, on condition he spend one year in the county jail, to be served concurrently with the term for receiving stolen property.
The prosecution presented evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the assault conviction. Horace Monroe, Jr., testified that he was *941 entering Ms automobile on November 22, 1978, when defendant approached the automobile in the company of a man whom the witness knew as Ali. Defendant and Ali were armed. Defendant told Monroe to get out of the veMcle and told Ali to shoot Mm. Defendant and Ali beat Monroe, causing injuries requiring 30 stitches to Ms forehead.
It was disclosed on cross-examination that defendant earlier had interrupted Monroe while the latter was removing the wheels from defendant’s Corvette. Monroe desisted when the police arrived, and defendant conferred with the officers. Monroe also was impeached with inconsistent statements he made at an earlier proceeding regarding whether defendant had been armed during the assault.
Horace Monroe, Sr., testified that on the day following the assault on his son, Horace Monroe, Jr., he was told that defendant was across the street from the older man’s home, armed. When Mr. Monroe, Sr., approached Ms truck intending to retrieve a shovel with which to defend himself, defendant opened fire on Mr. Monroe, Sr., shooting him in the shoulder. Horace Monroe, Jr., and Mrs. Monroe, Sr., confirmed seeing defendant and a companion, whom they knew as Ali, firing on Mr. Monroe, Sr. Although the witnesses stated the attack was unprovoked and that they had had no contact with defendant before he began firing, they were impeached with inconsistent testimony at earlier proceedings in which they stated that they had exchanged harsh words with defendant before the assault. There was also evidence of inconsistencies regarding which of the assailants was armed, how many assailants there were, and whether they fired repeatedly after hitting Mr. Monroe, Sr. There was also evidence that defendant’s companion, Ali Bryant, was known as a violent person.
2. Defense case
Defendant presented evidence in mitigation to demonstrate his background and his reputation in the community. He was born in Kansas and was separated from his siblings when his mother brought him to Los Angeles to live with her. His mother had severe mental health problems. When she gave birth to a daughter, defendant’s mother was unable to care for Mm as a consequence of her mental disability, and defendant was placed in foster care for a period of years. Defendant was a loving son. He was unaware of the identity of Ms father.
When he left foster care, defendant’s grandmother cared for Mm and for his mother. Defendant worshipped his grandmother and was emotionally devastated when she died. He had offered to donate Ms liver to her, but it *942 was too late. Her death occurred one month before the murder of Detective Williams.
Many witnesses testified regarding defendant’s excellent reputation as a kind and responsible father and as a friend to children in his neighborhood and community. He was a godfather to a friend’s child, and showed great concern when he visited the child in the hospital at birth and during an illness. Witnesses related additional acts of kindness to other persons.
Defendant was an entrepreneur, a responsible businessman who established a candy store with a video arcade and a limousine business.
A friend of defendant’s testified that on two occasions defendant acted as a Good Samaritan, once by stopping to offer assistance to a person injured in an automobile accident, and once by stopping to assist a person who had been shot.
The jury returned a verdict of death.
II. Discussion
A. Guilt Phase Issues
1. Claim of error in denying motion for change of venue
Before trial, defendant moved for a change of venue on the ground that his constitutional right to a fair trial had been prejudiced by pervasive pretrial publicity. In support of the motion, he offered copies of 93 newspaper articles describing the crimes, his arrest, the victim’s funeral, comments by the local police chief regarding the crimes, and developments in the police investigation of the case. He also referred to ongoing radio and television coverage of the case, without specifying whether or to what extent this coverage was prejudicial. The trial court denied the motion, stating “the bulk of the clippings that you allude to were in the papers in the very beginning ... or right immediately thereafter. I would agree that now we will be seeing some more in the papers about the case. [¶] However, I don’t think that from what you have submitted that it rises to a reasonable likelihood that the defendants cannot receive a fair and impartial trial in Van Nuys. I don’t think simply the showing of the publications rises to that level. [¶] Obviously, during the course of jury selection the defense is free to renew this type of a motion if we see that in fact we are not able to obtain a fair and impartial jury. [¶] So the motion at this time will be denied.” The motion was not renewed at the time of jury selection.
*943 Defendant contends on appeal that the denial of his motion for change of venue constituted a denial of his state and federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to be tried by a fair and impartial jury. He relies in large part upon the evidence of negative pretrial newspaper publicity that was the basis for his motion in the trial court. He also contends, without citation to the record, that 61 of 152 potential jurors stated they had prior knowledge of the case. He also asserts that three persons selected for jury service stated on their juror questionnaires that they had some familiarity with the case. He states that only one of these was questioned by defense counsel regarding her exposure to publicity.
We do not find any error in the trial court’s order denying the motion for change of venue.
Section 1033, subdivision (a), requires a trial court to grant a motion for change of venue if “there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county.” We have explained that “[t]he phrase ‘reasonable likelihood’ in this context ‘means something less than “more probable than not,” ’ and ‘something more than merely “possible.” ’ [Citation.] In ruling on such a motion, as to which defendant bears the burden of proof, the trial court considers as factors the gravity and nature of the crime, the extent and nature of the publicity, the size and nature of the community, the status of the victim, and the status of the accused.” (People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499, 523 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 , 842 P.2d 1100 ].)
On appeal, “ ‘the defendant must show both that the court erred in denying the change of venue motion, i.e., that at the time of the motion it was reasonably likely that a fair trial could not be had, and that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it [is] reasonably likely that a fair trial was not in fact had.’ ” (People v. Proctor, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 523 , italics in the original.) On appeal, we undertake a de novo review of the five controlling factors noted above (as demonstrated by the evidence before the trial court at the time of the motion), in order to resolve the first question—whether the trial court erred. Further, “[w]ith regard to the second part of the showing, in order to determine whether pretrial publicity had a prejudicial effect on the jury, we also examine the voir dire of the jurors.” (Id. at p. 524.)
The crime was of the gravest order, involving the murder of a police officer, and although this circumstance weighs in favor of a change of venue (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 852 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 802 P.2d 906 ]), it does not by itself require a change of venue. (See People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1276 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 850 P.2d 1 ].) Defendant’s motion for change of venue was made upon the basis of *944 assertedly prejudicial and extensive publicity. Although his motion and argument to the court referred to television and radio coverage, all the examples of prejudicial publicity to which he refers on appeal were disseminated through the print medium. He alludes to articles extolling the victim and explaining that he was murdered in connection with the prosecution of another of defendant’s crimes, and to articles sympathetically depicting the victim’s family at the victim’s funeral, relating the opinion of investigating officers that defendant was the leader of a conspiracy to kill the victim and that he had made attempts to commit the crime before accomplishing it, references to confessions of codefendants, and former Los Angeles Police Chief Gates’s comment that defendant was a heartless killer. He also contends his race was made obvious through photographs.
Although extensive and sometimes editorial, the bulk of this coverage dated from the time the crime was committed, some two years before the hearing on the motion for change of venue, and all the articles dated from at least 10 months prior to the motion. Such a lapse of time weighs against a change of venue. (People v. Proctor, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 525, and cases cited; see also People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 225 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ] [the “passage of time weighs heavily against a change of venue”].) The trial occurred in Van Nuys in Los Angeles County, an exceptionally populous area. (See People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1276 [involving a trial held in Los Angeles County’s San Fernando Valley for the murder of a police officer]; see also People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 363 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 807 P.2d 1009 ] [“ ‘The larger the local population, the more likely it is that preconceptions about the case have not become imbedded in the public consciousness.’ ”].) Although the victim was a police officer, apart from that status neither the victim nor defendant was prominent—or notorious—in the community. (See People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1276 [similar facts].) The density of the population in the area, the lapse of time between the conclusion of the publicity and the hearing on the motion, and the lack of prominence of the victim and defendant lead us to conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for change of venue.
In addition, with respect to the issue of prejudice, the record does not establish a reasonable likelihood that defendant did not in fact receive a fair trial. There was no indication that the pretrial publicity had a prejudicial impact upon the jurors’ ability to remain fair and impartial. Only three jurors who served on defendant’s jury indicated in their juror questionnaires that they had heard of the case prior to trial. The first had no information other than that the names of the defendants were recognizable, that he had no idea of the source of this information, and that he knew so little about the case *945 that the publicity would have no effect on his views regarding the matter. The second juror was aware that the case involved a police officer who had been killed as he picked up his son from school, but the juror believed this information would have no effect on his views regarding the case. The third juror was uncertain whether she had heard of the case, because it had been so long since her exposure to any publicity, but she believed it involved a man picking up his son from school. She also stated the publicity would have no effect on her view of the case. On voir dire, this juror also stated that she vaguely recalled reading in a newspaper at the time of the crime that it involved a man who was shot while picking up his child from school. She did not recall any other facts and stated that the publicity would have no impact upon her deliberations. According to defendant, no other seated juror was questioned on voir dire regarding publicity.
We recall that there is “no presumption of a deprivation of due process of law arising] from juror exposure to publicity concerning the case.” (People v. Proctor, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 527.) Defendant fails to point to any evidence establishing that the three jurors noted above who served on his case were exposed to or recalled any prejudicial element of the pretrial publicity. Their exposure to publicity was minimal and harmless. As we have observed: “Vague recollections of news reports by a few jurors do not compel a change of venue.” (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1169 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ].) Minimal exposure well before the commencement of trial, by a small number of jurors who reliably report that their exposure will not color their view of the case (see People v. Proctor, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 527), does not establish a reasonable likelihood that defendant did not in fact receive a fair trial.
Defendant also contends it was error to transfer the case from downtown Los Angeles to the San Fernando Valley and to retain it for trial there. The case initially was assigned to a downtown court, and over defendant’s objection was transferred for trial to Van Nuys, where the crime had occurred. When he moved for change of venue, defendant also made an alternative request that the matter be returned for trial to a downtown court.
Defendant contends on appeal that he was less likely to receive a fair trial in the San Fernando Valley, where the crime occurred, the population density was less than it was downtown, and fewer members of the community shared his ethnic background. The same considerations apply to an intracounty transfer as apply to a motion for change of venue to another county, and because we have found no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion for change of venue, we find no error in the assignment of the case *946 for trial in Van Nuys. (.People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1276, fn. 17.) 3
Defendant appears to contend that the trial court should have granted his motion for change of venue because of certain developments during voir dire. He alleges that during voir dire “there was much discussion of appellant’s case, and dissemination of false and damaging rumors. The spread and impact of such rumors, and the trial court’s refusal to adequately voir dire concerning those rumors . . . provides further evidence that the community of Van Nuys was itself tainted by both pretrial publicity and more informal sources of prejudicial ‘information,’ and that a change of venue was required.”
Any claim that such a motion should have been granted based upon developments at voir dire was waived by defendant. The trial court denied the motion for change of venue before the commencement of jury selection based upon proffered evidence of pretrial publicity, subject to renewal of the motion in the event voir dire established any further basis for questioning whether defendant would receive a fair trial in the county. Trial counsel did not renew the motion. Because trial counsel failed to cite occurrences at voir dire as the basis for a renewed motion for change of venue, he afforded the trial court no opportunity to grant the relief that defendant now contends should have been accorded him. Thus we conclude that defendant’s claim has been waived to the extent it is based upon occurrences at voir dire. (See People v. Bolin (1988) 18 Cal.4th 297, 312 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 ].) 4
2. Severance of trials
Defendant contends that the prosecutor obtained a severance of defendant’s (and codefendant Moss’s) trial from that of codefendants Duane Moody, Voltaire Williams, and Reecy Cooper for the impermissible purpose of obtaining a jury composed of White persons. Defendant contends the prosecutor’s improper purpose is demonstrated by the prosecutor’s statement that he wanted the trial to be conducted in Van Nuys, and not in Central Los *947 Angeles, in the context of the court’s indication that a transfer to Van Nuys was possible only if the case was broken into “more manageable units.” Defendant concedes he did not oppose the prosecutor’s severance motion on the ground asserted on appeal. In fact, defense counsel agreed prior to trial that severance was appropriate, although counsel stated he would oppose any transfer of the case to Van Nuys. The court agreed with defense counsel that the question of the transfer to the Van Nuys court was a separate matter that would be heard on another date. Similarly, at trial defense counsel conceded that severance was appropriate and that the question of the transfer of the trial to Van Nuys was not at issue in the context of the severance motion. Accordingly, any claim regarding the prosecutor’s motivation in moving for severance was waived. (See People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 254 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [claim of prosecutorial misconduct generally is waived if defendant does not object below]; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 940 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ] [defendant who fails to move to sever counts waives claim on appeal]; People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1048 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230 , 824 P.2d 1277 ] [defendant waives claim that court erred in denying codefendant’s severance motion when defendant did not join in the motion].) In any event, the record discloses that the prosecutor was motivated by a desire to sever the case in which the prosecution sought the death penalty (involving defendant and Moss) from the case in which the death penalty was not being sought (involving the other defendants) and to avoid an unmanageable trial involving too many defendants, that the prosecutor wanted to try both cases in Van Nuys because this was the location in which the crime was committed, and that he disavowed any ulterior purpose.
3. Severance of counts
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the trial of count 3, alleging the attempted murder of George Carpenter, from the trial of counts 1 and 2, alleging murder and conspiracy to murder Detective Thomas Williams.
All of these offenses belonged to the same class of crimes, so that joinder was appropriate pursuant to section 954 unless a clear showing of potential prejudice was made. (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1315 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145 , 939 P.2d 259 ].) We review the trial court’s ruling for abuse of discretion, which will be found “when the trial .court’s ruling ‘ “falls outside the bounds of reason.” ’ ” (Ibid.) Depending upon the particular circumstances of each case, a “ ‘[r]efusal to sever may be an abuse of discretion where: (1) evidence on the crimes to be jointly tried would not be cross-admissible in separate trials; (2) certain of the charges are unusually *948 likely to inflame the jury against the defendant; (3) a “weak” case has been joined with a “strong” case, or with another “weak” case, so that the “spill-over” effect of aggregate evidence on several charges might well alter the outcome of some or all of the charges; and (4) any one of the charges carries the death penalty or joinder of them turns the matter into a capital case.’ ” (Ibid.) 5 Not all of these considerations are of equal weight: “ ‘[T]he first step in assessing whether a combined trial [would have been] prejudicial is to determine whether evidence on each of the joined charges would have been admissible, under Evidence Code section 1101, in separate trials on the others. If so, any inference of prejudice is dispelled.’ [Citations.] Cross-admissibility suffices to negate prejudice, but it is not essential for that purpose.” (People v. Bradford, supra, at pp. 1315-1316; see also People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 850-851 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 ] [denial of severance should be sustained if other crimes evidence is cross-admissible, with possible exception if joinder is so grossly unfair as to deny defendant due process].)
Evidence that defendant attempted to hire a hit man to kill George Carpenter prior to Carpenter’s anticipated testimony against defendant at his ongoing trial for robbing Carpenter would have been admissible at a separate trial charging defendant with conspiracy to murder Detective Williams to prevent Williams from testifying at the same trial. Evidence in each case supported the inference that defendant acted for the same motive and with the same intent as in the other case—to kill witnesses in order to prevent them from testifying against defendant at the ongoing robbery trial. (See People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 127-128 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 , 913 P.2d 980 ] [evidence defendant kidnapped and robbed one victim in order to obtain the means of avoiding arrest for a prior murder was cross-admissible; evidence regarding the murder supplied evidence of motive for the robbery kidnapping, which in turn indicated consciousness of guilt for committing the murder]; People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1284 [no error in denying severance; evidence regarding robberies was cross-admissible to show motive for murder, because the motive (avoiding arrest) was circumstantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation, both of which were elements of the murder charge]; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 388 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 ] [no error in denying severance; evidence that one of the victims was killed on the orders of a prison gang to which the defendant belonged, and that the other victim was killed in an attempt to acquire firearms to carry out gang activities, was cross-admissible to show motive]; People v. Daly (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 47, 56 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21 ] [no *949 error in denying severance; evidence of robberies was relevant to show motive and intent with respect to attempted murder, because the evidence showed the attempted murder was committed to avoid the defendant’s return to prison for robberies he had committed, and evidence of attempted murders was cross-admissible to establish consciousness of guilt as to the robberies].) There is no support in the record for defendant’s contention that the charge that defendant attempted to murder George Carpenter was not brought in good faith, but was filed merely to “shore up” the capital charges. In addition, defendant has not demonstrated that the evidence underlying one of the offenses was significantly more inflammatory than the evidence in the other, or that evidence of guilt was so much stronger in one than the other that joinder was grossly unfair. (See People v. Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 851 .)
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the denial of defendant’s severance motion did not constitute a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; no ground exists to suppose the denial of severance deprived defendant of a reliable determination of guilt or caused a trial that was fundamentally unfair.
We reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the ability to demonstrate at the hearing on the severance motion that the evidence of the common motive for the attempted murder of Carpenter and the conspiracy to murder Detective Williams was very weak because of the prosecutor’s failure to provide timely discovery regarding witness Broomfield at the preliminary hearing. The hearing on severance occurred 10 months after the preliminary hearing, and defendant had ample time to discover evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the evidence of common motive was unreliable, or that the evidence of defendant’s responsibility for the attempted murder of Carpenter was weak. In any event, defendant did not make this claim at the hearing on the severance motion; in fact he stated he would not attack the credibility of Broomfield. He suggested that it would have been poor defense tactics to attempt to impeach the witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he preferred to reserve the defense for trial. Thus this claim is waived on appeal. (See People v. Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th 786, 851 .)
Defendant also contends that “there was a due process violation based on [prosecutorial] misconduct in fabricating evidence to support an otherwise unavailable joinder of cases.” This claim is based upon the contention that the police had fabricated a police report from one Donald Sutton relating defendant’s plan to murder Carpenter, and offered it at the preliminary hearing. The weakness of the Sutton evidence—which was not presented by the People at trial—was brought to the trial court’s attention at the hearing *950 on the severance motion. The circumstance that this particular evidence was weak did not make joinder unavailable, and the claim that the police fabricated the evidence is unconvincing. (See claim No. 17, post; see also claim No. 5, post.)
4. Delay in discovery
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the information, exclude the testimony of Arvie Carroll, or impose any other effective sanction for the prosecution’s failure to disclose to the defense before the preliminary hearing that the prosecution possessed evidence that defendant had made inculpatory statements to jailhouse informant Arvie Carroll.
Before the preliminary hearing, Carroll, a person incarcerated with defendant in the county jail, informed the prosecution that defendant had admitted to Carroll that defendant had killed Detective Williams. The prosecution did not inform the defense of this statement until approximately two months after the preliminary hearing. Defendant made an unsuccessful motion to set aside the information or bar the testimony of Carroll at trial, or for some other appropriate sanction against the prosecution for its delay in complying with the trial court’s discovery order. Defendant contends that the trial court’s refusal to impose a sanction constituted a violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law and to confront the witnesses against him. He asserts a violation of parallel provisions of the California Constitution.
As we have stated, “[i]t is defendant’s burden to show that the failure to timely comply with any discovery order is prejudicial, and that a continuance would not have cured the harm.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 941 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765 , 824 P.2d 571 ].) Defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice. He contends he was prejudiced because he was unable to examine Carroll at the preliminary hearing or to interview witnesses regarding the credibility of Carroll’s statement. He contends the prosecution gained a tactical advantage by shielding Carroll from examination at the preliminary hearing regarding defendant’s inculpatory statement and Carroll’s possible status as a government agent. He contends he thereby was deprived of an opportunity to develop an affirmative defense.
The contention is unpersuasive. Defendant had ample time—one and a half years—after learning of Carroll’s statement to the prosecution to prepare to challenge the evidence and develop any affirmative defense. Defendant’s claim that had he known of Carroll’s statement prior to the preliminary *951 hearing, he would have called Carroll as a witness at that hearing and obtained evidence to discredit him and to support a defense that defendant was being framed is entirely speculative. In any event, as noted, defendant had ample opportunity in the extended period between the disclosure of Carroll’s statement and the trial to gather evidence in support of such a claim. 6
Defendant’s contention also is premised upon the assumption that a limitation on a defendant’s ability to discover evidence and to develop a defense at the preliminary hearing necessarily is reversible error. Such error, however, at the preliminary hearing is not reversible on appeal in the absence of a showing of prejudice at trial. (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ] [holding that irregularities at the preliminary hearing that “are not jurisdictional in the fundamental sense” require reversal on appeal only if the defendant can demonstrate that he or she “was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise suffered prejudice as a result of the error at the preliminary examination”].) At trial, defendant was able to confront and cross-examine Carroll, having had ample opportunity to investigate the basis for the witness’s testimony and any affirmative defense suggested by it. The delay in disclosure did not implicate defendant’s due process right to be informed of material evidence favorable to the accused (see Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87 [ 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-1197 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ]; see also United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 678 [ 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381-3382 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ]); he was informed of the evidence and had ample time to investigate before trial. Moreover, the evidence in the prosecution’s possession was not favorable to the accused.
Finally, defendant fails to support his contention that the trial court was required to impose the sanctions of dismissal or exclusion of evidence, or at least to impose a special jury instruction, because the prosecution allegedly had committed a willful violation of a discovery order. The cases cited by defendant recognize that courts have broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for discovery abuse, and recognize that sanctions ranging from dismissal to the giving of special jury instructions may be required in order to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial, particularly when potentially favorable evidence has been suppressed. (See, e.g., People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 99 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 573 , 615 P.2d 1361 ]; People v. Caldwell (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 5 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 272 ] [reversing *952 an order dismissing a complaint for discovery violations in the absence of a showing of prejudice].) Defendant cites no case, and our research has disclosed none, establishing that the prosecutor’s pretrial delay—whether willful or not—in disclosing inculpatory evidence to the defendant requires a particular sanction as a matter of due process, or that failure to impose a sanction for a period of delay that occurred long before trial requires reversal of a conviction in the absence of prejudice to the defendant at trial. We note that the record does not support defendant’s contention that the trial court did nothing to protect him from violation of the court’s discovery order. At the hearing on the motion to set aside the information, at which the prosecutor asserted that concern for Carroll’s safety led to the delay in disclosure, the trial court determined that defendant had not been prejudiced by the delay in discovery, but warned the prosecutor not to make any further unilateral decisions regarding compliance with the court’s discovery order and threatened sanctions if the court’s warning were not heeded. In sum, no constitutional violation or other error has been shown.
5. Failure to disclose evidence
Defendant contends the prosecution violated his right to due process of law by failing to disclose information regarding an alleged informant system in the Los Angeles County jail that assertedly encouraged inmates to seek or fabricate confessions from defendants in notorious cases such as his. Defendant relies upon the rule that due process of law requires that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to an accused (see Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at p. 87 [83 S.Ct. at pp. 1196-1197]; see also United States v. Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at p. 678 [105 S.Ct. at pp. 3381-3392]), including “ ‘favorable evidence known to . . . others acting on the government’s behalf ....’” (In re Brown (1998) 17 Cal.4th 873, 879 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 952 P.2d 715 ].) He contends the undisclosed evidence was material and exculpatory because it would have provided a strong basis for impeachment of prosecution witnesses.
Defendant’s contention is premised upon his assertion that such a system existed at the time of his incarceration in the Los Angeles County jail. In support, defendant offers a Los Angeles Grand Jury Report from 1989-1990. This report is not part of the record on appeal, however, and “[a]s we have emphasized in the past, our review on direct appeal is limited to the appellate record.” (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1183 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) As we have done in the past, “[b]ecause defendant’s claim is dependent upon evidence and matters not reflected in the record on appeal, we decline to consider it at this juncture.” (Ibid.)
Defendant asks that we take judicial notice of the grand jury report. We deny the request, because it is “in contravention of the general rule that an *953 appellate court generally is not the forum in which to develop an additional factual record . . . (People v. Peevy (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1184, 1207 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 865 , 953 P.2d 1212 ]; see also People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136, 1144, fn. 5 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 111 , 783 P.2d 698 ].) The circumstance that we granted a request to take judicial notice of the same report in People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 800 P.2d 1159 ] is unavailing. (See id. at p. 1259, fn. 54.) In that case we granted judicial notice in connection with the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. A habeas corpus proceeding, of course, appropriately may develop a record beyond the record on appeal. (See People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].)
Defendant asserts, based upon the record on appeal, that the informants who testified against him offered unreliable testimony, that details of their statements could have been garnered from news reports and additional sources other than defendant, and that defendant complained during trial that he was subject to harassment by jail officials during his pretrial custody. These claims, even if accepted as true, do not demonstrate that there was a system within the Los Angeles County jail of encouraging inmates to recount fabricated confessions or that defendant was the victim of such a system. Defendant is incorrect in suggesting that the record on appeal demonstrates that detectives investigating the crime purposefully placed inmate informants near defendant in an effort to secure incriminating statements; defendant’s own citations to the record reveal no such evidence. Under these circumstances, defendant has failed to establish that the prosecution was in possession of material exculpatory evidence that it failed to disclose to the defense, and we must reject his claim.
6. Discovery related to police activities
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant discovery of certain evidence, and that the prosecution erred in failing to disclose it. He contends this error deprived him of his constitutional right to due process of law.
The defendant generally is entitled to discovery of information that will assist in his defense or be useful for impeachment or cross-examination of adverse witnesses. (People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 677 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ].) A motion for discovery must describe the information sought with some specificity and provide a plausible justification for disclosure. (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1171 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ].) The court’s ruling on a discovery motion is subject to review for abuse of discretion. (People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 979 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 , 820 P.2d 214 ].)
*954 Under the due process clause of the federal Constitution, the government has the obligation to disclose to the defendant evidence in its possession that is favorable to the accused and material to the issues of guilt or punishment. (Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 263, 280-282 [ 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1948 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 ); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987) 480 U.S. 39, 57 [ 107 S.Ct. 989, 1001 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 ] [applying due process analysis in the context of court’s denial of discovery]; People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 840-843 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 919 P.2d 1280 ] [same].) Evidence is material if a reasonable probability exists that a different result would have occurred in the proceeding had the evidence been disclosed to the defense. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceedings. (Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 57 [ 107 S.Ct. at p. 1001 ]; In re Sassounian (1995) 9 Cal.4th 535, 543-544, & fn. 5 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 , 887 P.2d 527 ], overruling broader statement of the standard in People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 30, fn. 14 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 119 , 756 P.2d 843 ], upon which defendant relies.)
Defendant complains that the trial court refused to grant discovery of photographs of police officers who were involved in surveilling him prior to October 31, 1985, and of photographs of the vehicles used in the police surveillance. He asserts that such photographs could have been shown to neighbors of defendant and other witnesses for the purpose of identification. Defendant sought to demonstrate that police surveillance lasted longer than the police had admitted, thereby suggesting defendant would not have engaged in the charged crimes while he knew he was under surveillance.
As respondent points out, the prosecution offered to make the surveillance officers available so that witnesses could view them in person. Thus, defendant had no further need for photographs of the officers.
The court also acted within its discretion in determining that defendant had not shown sufficient cause to warrant discovery of photographs of the surveillance vehicles. As the court stated, the defense witnesses who testified in support of the discovery motion regarding the surveillance of defendant had little or no independent recollection of the vehicles defendant had told them were following him, so the utility of photographs of the surveillance vehicles for defendant’s purposes was doubtful. The court also observed that it might be unduly suggestive to show photographs of the vehicles to witnesses who had no independent recollection of them. Further, we note that the court denied the discovery motion without prejudice, stating that if defendant had additional evidence, the court would reconsider the matter. Defense counsel stated he probably would put defendant on the stand to supply the needed foundation for the discovery request, but he never did so.
*955 Finally, the evidence was not material, such that its loss deprived defendant of due process of law. Defendant has not demonstrated that the prosecution had in its possession evidence that was favorable to him and material to the issues of guilt or punishment. (See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 57 [ 107 S.Ct. at p. 1001 ].) There is no reasonable probability a different result would have occurred in the proceeding had the evidence been disclosed to the defense (ibid.)—the evidence was not such as “ ‘could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.’ ” (Strickler v. Greene, supra, 527 U.S. at p. 290 [ 119 S.Ct at p. 1952 ].) Defendant was able to introduce evidence in support of his theory that the police surveillance had extended until the time of the Williams murder, and it would be entirely speculative to conclude that photographs of surveillance vehicles would have affected the verdict either by corroborating defense witnesses or by leading to potential exculpatory evidence.
Defendant also contends the trial court erred in denying his request for discovery of memoranda written by Los Angeles Police Chief Gates and a lieutenant in the police department regarding an internal affairs investigation of Officers Pesante, Slack, and Riscens in connection with the alleged statement of Donald Sutton to Officer Pesante that defendant intended to kill Carpenter. As respondent notes, the People did provide defendant with the police department’s written report on the internal affairs investigation that was the basis upon which Chief Gates and the lieutenant based their memoranda. The trial court properly reviewed the disputed memoranda in camera to weigh the People’s claim of privilege against defendant’s asserted need for the information (see People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal.4th 494, 518 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 779 , 862 P.2d 779 ]), and determined that nothing contained in the memoranda would be material to the defense. Our review of the documents confirms the court’s conclusion. The court’s refusal to grant discovery was within its discretion, and no due process violation has been shown.
Defendant next contends the trial court erred in quashing a subpoena duces tecum for copies of manuals or other records concerning the operation of the county jail module in which defendant was confined. He sought these records to rebut the prosecutor’s contention that its delay in disclosing jailhouse informant Carroll’s statement implicating defendant until after the preliminary hearing, was reasonable because of concerns that defendant would retaliate against Carroll as long as Carroll was housed in the county jail. We observe that although the court quashed the subpoena, it examined the module itself and concluded that the prosecution’s security concerns were reasonable. Without examining the merits of the court’s decision with respect to discovery, we conclude that any error in denying discovery was *956 harmless because the requested evidence went to the issue of delay in disclosing Carroll’s statement. (See People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 134 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554 , 833 P.2d 561 ] [defendant must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on claim of discovery error].) We have determined that the delay was nonprejudicial. No due process violation appears, because the evidence was not material; there is no reasonable probability a different result would have occurred in the proceeding, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense.
Defendant also contends the court erred in denying his request for discovery of all cases that Detective Williams had investigated, or in which he had made an arrest, in the year before he was murdered. We observe that the trial court granted the request to the extent that it ordered disclosure of the names of persons who had made threats against Williams.
Defendant’s theory was that a person investigated or arrested by Williams may have borne a grudge against the officer and thus been responsible for the murder of the officer. Defendant noted that some eyewitnesses to the shooting of Detective Williams had described the assailant as White or Hispanic, whereas defendant is African-American. He contended that evidence of a White or Hispanic suspect in one of Williams’s cases who bore a grudge against the officer—if such a person existed—would add weight to his defense.
At the hearing, the prosecution, through the Los Angeles City Attorney, resisted discovery on the grounds that defendant had made an inadequate showing and that the request would impose an inordinate burden on the police department to sift through its records to determine what arrests or investigations Williams had been involved in during the year preceding his death. The city attorney offered: “[t]o the extent that we’re aware and can discover if any individuals which Detective Williams had been involved with made any kind of threat or which the department suspected may present a threat to Detective Williams, a serious threat of bodily injury or death, we will search our files and dig up that information to the extent that we can; to the extent that anyone is aware of that type of factor.” The trial court concluded defendant had not given sufficient justification for the discovery, and denied the motion except “insofar as any information that’s been obtained by the Police Department that perhaps other individuals may have made threats against officer Williams.”
Defendant speculates that some person under investigation by Detective Williams, but who had not, to the knowledge of the prosecution, made any threat against the officer, may have been responsible for murdering the *957 officer. The court acted within its discretion in denying defendant’s request to the extent the request was not focused on evidence of threats to Detective Williams. (See People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 686-687 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 802 P.2d 278 ].) We are supported in reaching this conclusion by the circumstance that the information requested was subject to the official information privilege (Evid. Code, § 1040; In re David W. (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 840, 846-847 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 342 ]; see also Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 76-78 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 ] [recognizing the need to keep confidential the arrest records of third parties]), at least to the extent the “necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information . . . outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 1040, subd. (b)(2).) As we have observed, “[although policy may favor granting liberal discovery to criminal defendants, courts may nevertheless refuse to grant discovery if the burdens placed on government and on third parties substantially outweigh the demonstrated need for discovery.” (People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 686.) There is a significant interest in preserving the confidentiality of an individual citizen’s arrest records (ibid.; Westbrook v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 157, 165-166 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 ]; Craig v. Municipal Court, supra, 100 Cal.App.3d at pp. 76-78), and defendant’s showing of need for those records was based upon speculation and constituted the proverbial fishing expedition. No abuse of discretion is shown. We also reject defendant’s due process claim with respect to this evidence, on the ground defendant is unable to demonstrate the existence of exculpatory material evidence in the possession of the prosecution. 7
7. Denial of continuance before the preliminary hearing
After numerous continuances obtained by or concurred in by the defense, defendant’s preliminary hearing was scheduled approximately five months after his arrest. At that time he moved for continuance of the preliminary hearing on the ground that the prosecution had not yet provided specified items of discovery and other items had been provided very recently, and on the further ground that the recently filed complaint charging two additional codefendants with conspiracy to commit murder would require substantially more preparation. The court denied the motion. Defendant sought writ review of this decision in the Court of Appeal without avail, and this court denied his petition for review. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the information on the ground the denial of a continuance deprived him of various constitutional rights, including the right to the effective assistance *958 of counsel, but the trial court denied the motion on the ground that defense counsel appeared to be very prepared for the preliminary hearing and conducted “superb” examination of the witnesses. The court also noted that defense counsel had called 52 witnesses at the preliminary hearing while the prosecution had called 33. Defendant again unsuccessfully sought to overturn this ruling by way of a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition.
Defendant contends the denial of a continuance deprived him of a meaningful preliminary hearing, in violation of what he characterizes as a federal constitutional right to the evenhanded application of state law. He also appears to contend that denial of his motion for a continuance deprived him of the right to the effective assistance of counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and to present an affirmative defense. He contends his claim cannot be rejected on the ground that counsel conducted the preliminary hearing in a competent manner, because the crux of his claim is that counsel was deprived of crucial evidence and time to prepare in the face of matters that developed shortly before the preliminary hearing.
Defendant may prevail in this claim only if he can demonstrate that the denial of a continuance before the preliminary hearing resulted in the denial of a fair trial or otherwise affected the ultimate judgment. (People v. Pompa-Ortiz, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 529-530 ; see also People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 855 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 227 , 760 P.2d 423 ].) Defendant is unable to demonstrate that failure to grant him a continuance before the preliminary hearing had any effect on the trial or the judgment. He is unpersuasive in contending that the requested continuance would have afforded him time and ability to develop information regarding his defense that the case against him was “invented” by the police. One year and nine months elapsed between the preliminary hearing and the evidentiary portion of the trial, allowing defendant ample time to investigate, to examine the discovered material that had been provided by the prosecution, and to prepare to meet the case against him. His inability to secure the dismissal of the charge that he attempted to murder George Carpenter, even in the unlikely event the failure to grant him a pre-preliminary-hearing continuance was the cause, is not a basis for reversal of the ensuing conviction as long as the denial of a continuance did not deprive him of a fair trial on that charge or otherwise affect the ultimate judgment. Defendant has made no showing that the denial of a continuance had such an effect as to any of the charges, or that the denial of a continuance had any impact at subsequent trial proceedings on his rights to counsel, to confront the witnesses against him, or to present a defense. Accordingly, we reject these claims.
8. Faretta motions
Defendant contends the trial court denied him the right to represent himself at the guilt phase of the trial in violation of the Sixth and *959 Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution. He asserts that the trial court violated this right in two respects: first, by coercing him to withdraw his pretrial motion to represent himself, and second, by denying the motion for self-representation that he renewed on the eve of trial.
A defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel possesses a right under the Sixth Amendment of the federal Constitution to conduct his or her own defense. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 835-836 [ 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541-2542 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ].) When the defendant moves to dismiss counsel and undertake his or her own defense, he or she “should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ ” (Id. at p. 835 [ 95 S.Ct. at p. 2541 ]; see also People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 928-929.) Further, as we have explained, “although in a criminal trial a defendant has a federal constitutional, unconditional right of self-representation, in order to invoke that right, he or she must make an unequivocal assertion of that right within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial. [Citations.] When a motion for self-representation is not made in a timely fashion prior to trial, self-representation no longer is a matter of right but is subject to the trial court’s discretion.” (People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1365 .) In exercising this discretion, the trial court should consider factors such as “ ‘the quality of counsel’s representation of the defendant, the defendant’s prior proclivity to substitute counsel, the reasons for the request, the length and stage of the proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion.’ ” (People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 853 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 184 , 771 P.2d 1270 ], quoting People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 8 , 560 P.2d 1187 ].)
The record reflects that on October 8, 1987, during hearings on pretrial motions to be resolved before the commencement of jury selection, defendant, who already had been granted status as cocounsel, moved to dismiss counsel and undertake his defense alone. Counsel explained on defendant’s behalf that defendant felt such status would improve his treatment in the county jail. In addition, counsel explained that defendant viewed both of the two attorneys appointed to represent him as incompetent in being unprepared for the penalty phase. Defendant believed that at a recent hearing, defense counsel had seemed unprepared for the prosecution’s planned introduction of certain evidence at the penalty phase, but stated that no continuance was necessary.
The trial court explained that defendant’s concern over his counsel’s preparation was unfounded, and that counsel clearly would be prepared even *960 during the guilt phase of the trial to meet the evidence referred to. In addition, the court informed defendant that the case involved an overwhelming amount of work even for the two lawyers who had been appointed to represent him, that the court was aware how much time counsel were spending on investigation and preparation of the case, and that in the court’s view, the task would be truly overwhelming for an individual in custody and without legal training. Although the court acknowledged the right of defendant to represent himself, it stated: “I cringe at that thought in this case because it is one of the most serious cases that this county has had in a long time.” The court acknowledged that defendant was bright, but warned him that his lack of legal training would stand in his way in conducting his own defense. The court stated: “I could not advise you strongly enough of what an impossible situation that would be for you.” The court urged defendant not to “decide lightly.” With regard to defense counsel’s preparation for the penalty phase, the court reminded defendant that any penalty phase was unlikely to commence for two or three months, and that “even then, if time is needed to prepare for a penalty phase, very often courts do recess for several weeks between the guilt phase and the penalty phase . . . .” The court stated it would “feel better” if it knew defendant had what it considered to be the best representation available, and that otherwise “that would really trouble me. That would really upset me ... if the death penalty is imposed, then I’m going to feel more able to live with that if each [defendant] was given all the procedural rights that you were entitled to. And that includes the best representation you could get.”
Immediately following this statement, one of the defense counsel suggested that he would visit defendant in the county jail the next day, to “talk about this further. And maybe we can re[s]olve this without actually requesting to go pro. per. Do you want to think about this a little bit?” Defendant responded: “Okay.” The court agreed, noting that although it was not concerned regarding defendant’s conduct and that it might even be convenient for the court if defendant were to represent himself because the trial might go faster, this was not the court’s concern. Defendant reiterated that his counsel’s delay in preparation for the penalty phase concerned him, because witnesses might disappear if counsel waited until after the guilt phase to complete the investigation. The court noted that counsel would have time to complete the investigation during jury selection, and “we can take a recess at the end of the guilt phase before the penalty phase. And normally that is done for at least a couple weeks.” Defendant stated he would speak to counsel the following day, “but I still want the record to show that I’m still thinking about 80 percent of my mind of just taking this whole case pro. per. And I haven’t completed that decision yet until I speak with Mr. Price and see what he has to say tomorrow.”
*961 After counsel discussed the matter with defendant, counsel secured from the court a brief continuance in order to complete the investigation that defendant felt should be conducted in advance of the trial, and represented that this would satisfy defendant’s concerns. Defendant stated that under these circumstances he would proceed represented by counsel.
Defendant contends that he made a motion for self-representation well in advance of the commencement of trial and accordingly was entitled to represent himself, but that the trial court coerced him into withdrawing the motion by making false assurances that there would be ample time to complete investigation between the guilt and penalty phases of the trial, and by impressing upon defendant that it would cause the court distress if he were to represent himself. He contends this coercion constituted a denial of the right to due process of law.
The record establishes, however, that the court did not coerce defendant into withdrawing his motion. Rather, the court properly advised defendant of the pitfalls of self-representation. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not suggest that if defendant persisted in representing himself, he would face a hostile court. Although defendant’s motion for self-representation was based in part upon a concern that defense counsel had failed to investigate certain proposed penalty phase evidence, we are unpersuaded that the court coerced defendant into withdrawing the motion by making a false promise that a continuance would be granted between the guilt and penalty phases. The record establishes that defendant was satisfied that a continuance before jury selection commenced would provide adequate time for investigation. Also, as the court predicted, there was an approximately two-week hiatus between the verdict at the guilt phase and the commencement of the penalty phase. Finally, it is evident that it was defendant’s consultation with defense counsel rather than the court’s comments that persuaded defendant to withdraw his motion for self-representation.
With respect to defendant’s second motion to represent himself, the matter was left to the trial court’s sound discretion, because the motion was made after the jury had been selected and the prosecution had delivered its opening statement. (People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 1104-1105.)
The record establishes that defendant moved to represent himself on this second occasion without explaining the basis for his request. He did not request a continuance. The trial court declared that, guided by the factors enumerated in People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121 , it was exercising its discretion to deny the motion. The court stated: “First of all, you have to realize this is not his first request to go pro. per. It’s his second one in front *962 of me .... There clearly is a proclivity of some kind to seek to substitute counsel or remove counsel when Mr. Jenkins is unhappy with the way the proceedings are going.” The court recounted at length the excellence of the representation that had been afforded to defendant.
The court also referred to the potential for disruption, noting defendant’s manner and demeanor, and his written threat to disrupt the trial and to tell jurors of matters that the court had withheld from them. 8 The court, observing that defendant appeared to lack stability and emotional maturity, stated: “I feel that he has demonstrated during these proceedings in his failure to come out, his threats to the court, a lack of control over his emotions and his behavior.” Far from engaging in baseless “amateur psychology,” as alleged by defendant, the court carefully recounted defendant’s recent conduct in refusing to appear in court when he was annoyed with the court’s rulings on motions. The court stated defendant had written the court a letter in which he stated his intention—later apparently retracted—to disrupt the proceedings. The court commented: “I can’t take the risk of having him refuse to show up during trial should I rule against him.” The court also noted defendant’s proclivity for arguing at length with the court after the court had informed him that no further argument was in order, and questioned whether he could restrain himself from persisting in this practice if he were his own counsel. Although defendant assured the court he would appear on each day of trial if accorded pro se status, the court evidently did not credit this assurance.
The court also noted the advanced stage of the proceedings, and stated that the only factor in defendant’s favor was that he did not request a continuance.
Defendant fails to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying this motion for self-representation. The court reasonably could conclude that defendant was well represented by counsel, that he had some proclivity to vacillate with respect to representation by counsel, and that the granting of the motion would disrupt the orderly conduct of the trial.
Defendant contends there was no risk he would disrupt the proceedings, but the court reasonably concluded otherwise. The court was aware that *963 defendant had attempted to influence the court to change a ruling during jury selection by absenting himself from the proceedings, and that, similarly, defendant had refused to appear for the prosecutor’s and his own counsel’s opening statements. This conduct, in addition to the written threat to disrupt the proceedings, demonstrated a likelihood (not evident at the time of the pretrial Faretta motion) that the proceedings would be disrupted in the event defendant were permitted to represent himself.
Defendant’s contention that the court’s ruling was the result of resentment on the part of the court is not supported by the record. He does not support with authority his contention that the court lacked discretion to deny the motion on the ground, in part, that his refusal to participate in the proceedings when disappointed with the court’s rulings was predictive of disruptive behavior during trial. Defendant relies upon authority, applicable to a timely motion for self-representation, that is not apposite when the motion is made after the commencement of trial and is directed to the court’s discretion. (See People v. Superior Court (George) (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 350 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 305 ] [holding that the trial court erred in denying a Faretta motion made in advance of trial, when defendant’s right to self-representation was almost absolute, on the basis of a determination that the defendant presented a security and escape risk]; see also U.S. v. Flewitt (9th Cir. 1989) 874 F.2d 669, 674 [defendants who had been granted pro se status in advance of trial could not be deprived of that status because of their failure to prepare properly for trial, especially when a failure to obey a court order or an act of contempt was not alleged; defendants’ “[p]retrial activity is relevant only if it affords a strong indication that the defendants will disrupt the proceedings in the courtroom”].)
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court exercised its discretion and found that, considering the relevant factors, the motion for self-representation should be denied. The circumstance that defendant did not seek a continuance is not determinative. (People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1106.) No abuse of discretion appears.
9. Pretrial motions to suppress evidence
a. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation of Duane Moody
Defendant contends the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence the police obtained as the result of statements made by Duane Moody—statements the trial court determined were involuntary. Defendant contends that the murder weapon, evidence relating to the automobile thought to have been used in the shooting of Detective Williams, and *964 the testimony of Ali and Cathy Woodson should have been excluded as the fruit of Moody’s involuntary statements. Accordingly, defendant contends the trial court violated his right to due process of law as guaranteed by the state and federal Constitutions. He also contends this evidence should have been excluded as the fruit of a violation of Moody’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
In pretrial proceedings, before their cases were severed, defendant joined in codefendant Moody’s motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5. Defendant contended he had standing to claim that Moody’s arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, because the warrantless arrest of Moody constituted outrageous government conduct in violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process. He maintained that Moody’s statement to the police and all evidence obtained as the fruit of the statement should be suppressed. Defendant also joined in codefendant Moody’s motion to suppress the statements on the ground that they were involuntary because they were obtained as the result of offers of leniency and other physical and psychological coercion preceding and during interrogation. Defendant asserted that he had standing to raise the claim that Moody’s statements were involuntary under Fifth Amendment principles, also asserting an independent due process right under the state and federal Constitutions not to have his conviction based upon the involuntary confession or statement of another. He moved to suppress Moody’s statements and all tangible and intangible evidence obtained by the exploitation of the involuntary statements and their fruits.
Evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress indicated that in a November 4, 1985, interrogation, Moody informed the police where he had secreted the murder weapon. The weapon was discovered at the location indicated—the Woodsons’ house. In a November 6, 1985, statement, Moody said the vehicle that had been used in the shooting of Detective Williams was a sky-blue Oldsmobile with a white top, and he described its location. The vehicle was found at that location.
The trial court heard numerous witnesses, and concluded that: Moody’s arrest was supported by probable cause; Moody’s claim that the police physically mistreated him was not supported by the record; statements Moody made to the police prior to November 4, 1985, were voluntary, but that Moody’s statements to the police on November 4, 1985, were involuntary and inadmissible, apparently on the ground that they were the product of offers of leniency. In addition, the court found Moody’s statement to the police on November 6, 1985, inadmissible as a fruit of the earlier coerced statement. Nonetheless, the court held that the murder weapon, the vehicle *965 connected with the murder, and the testimony of Ali and Cathy Woodson were admissible because inevitably they would have been discovered during the course of a lawfully conducted investigation.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the murder weapon, evidence concerning the vehicle from which the fatal shots appeared to have been fired, and certain shell casings discovered in the vehicle. Defendant also claims that the trial court erred in permitting the testimony of the Woodsons regarding codefendant Moody’s action in storing the murder weapon at their home on the night of the murder. He maintains that this evidence was the fruit of Moody’s involuntary statements, and that the trial court erred in determining that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered in the course of a lawfully conducted investigation even without Moody’s statements. In his reply brief, defendant also contends that he has standing to raise this claim because violation of Moody’s privilege against self-incrimination constituted a violation of his own due process rights. The coercion applied to Moody, he contends, caused Moody to disclose the whereabouts of the weapon and the vehicle, and to disclose the identity of the Woodsons. Without a rule requiring suppression of the challenged evidence, he alleges, police misconduct would be encouraged rather than deterred.
Respondent contends that the trial court erred in determining that Moody’s statements were involuntary, that defendant lacks standing to complain of any violation of Moody’s Fifth Amendment rights, and that the trial court correctly determined that the challenged evidence inevitably would have been discovered in the course of a lawfully conducted investigation. Respondent claims, finally, that the introduction of the evidence, even if obtained as a result of an involuntary statement, did not violate defendant’s due process right to a fair trial. As we shall explain, we need not and do not determine whether the statements were voluntary or whether the evidence inevitably would have been discovered, because we agree with respondent’s final contention that, in any event, the introduction of this evidence did not violate defendant’s due process rights.
As an initial matter, we agree with respondent that defendant lacks standing to raise the claim that in conducting their interrogation, police officers violated Moody’s privilege against self-incrimination. A defendant lacks standing to complain of the violation of a third party’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (People v. Badgett (1995) 10 Cal.4th 330, 343 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 , 895 P.2d 877 ]; People v. Douglas (1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 501 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 126 , 788 P.2d 640 ], disapproved on another point in People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 933, fn. 4 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ].)
*966 Defendant does have standing, however, to assert that his own due process right to a fair trial was violated as a consequence of the asserted violation of Moody's Fifth Amendment rights. (People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 344; People v. Douglas, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 501.) As we have recognized, the “ ‘admission at trial of improperly obtained statements [of a third party] which results in a fundamentally unfair trial violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial.’ ” (People v. Douglas, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 499.)
The violation of a third party’s privilege against self-incrimination may deprive a defendant of his or her due process rights if such action adversely affects the reliability of testimony offered against the defendant at trial. As we have said: “[W]hen the evidence produced at trial is subject to coercion . . . defendant’s due process rights [are] implicated and the exclusionary rule . . . [is] applied. When a defendant seeks to exclude evidence on this ground, the defendant must allege that the trial testimony is coerced [citation], and that its admission will deprive him of a fair trial [citation].” (People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 344, italics in original.)
Defendant does not contend that testimony presented at trial was the result of coercion. Moody did not testify at defendant’s trial. Rather, defendant contends that the fruits of Moody’s involuntary statements were inadmissible under the exclusionary rule applicable in cases of violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He maintains that police misconduct must be deterred, and that if the fruit of police coercion of a third party could be admitted against a defendant, “the police . . . would have little incentive ... to refrain from taking extreme and illegal measures to obtain evidence from one codefendant to use against another.”
Our opinion in People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th 330 , however, establishes that a defendant may not prevail simply by alleging that the challenged evidence was the fruit of an assertedly involuntary statement of a third person. In that case, we determined specifically that a defendant may not secure the exclusion of the trial testimony of a third party simply on the ground that it was the fruit of the third party’s involuntary statement. (Id. at pp. 346, 348-350.) We explained that when the defendant’s claim is based upon the involuntariness of a third party’s statement, the exclusionary rule applicable to a claimed violation of the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply. (Id. at p. 346.) Rather, the defendant may prevail only by demonstrating fundamental unfairness at trial, normally by establishing that evidence to be produced at trial was made unreliable by coercion. (Id. at pp. 347-348.)
As we observed in the Badgett case, “the primary purpose of excluding coerced testimony of third parties is to assure the reliability of the trial *967 proceedings . . . (People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 347.) In addition, “[t]he purpose of exclusion of evidence pursuant to a due process claim ... is adequately served by focusing on the evidence to be presented at trial, and asking whether that evidence is made unreliable by ongoing coercion . . . .” (Id. at pp. 347-348, italics in original.)
Defendant’s assertion that the challenged evidence should have been excluded in order to deter police misconduct is inconsistent with the primary justification for recognizing the accused’s limited standing to complain of the violation of another individual’s privilege against self-incrimination—a concern to provide fundamental fairness at trial by ensuring the reliability of the evidence presented at that proceeding. Defendant’s assertion that the goal of deterring police misconduct in all criminal investigations requires the exclusion of the ensuing evidence would result in the adoption of a Fifth Amendment exclusionary rule in such cases, affording defendants unlimited standing to complain of the violation of a third person’s privilege against self-incrimination, without the necessity of demonstrating any fundamental unfairness in the trial itself. The law provides, however, that it is only the defendant’s own right to fundamental fairness that is at stake in such circumstances, and that the exclusionary rule applicable to violations of the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply.
When in the past we have considered due process claims such as defendant’s, the trial evidence sought to be excluded was the testimony of the third party who assertedly had been subject to coercion. (See People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 342; People v. Douglas, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 498-499.) In the present case, defendant did not seek to exclude statements of the third party. Moody did not testify, nor was evidence of his involuntary statements to the police presented in evidence. Rather, at trial defendant sought to exclude demonstrative evidence he claims was discovered as a product of the coercion of Moody—the murder weapon and evidence relating to the vehicle from which it was asserted the fatal shots were fired—as well as the testimony of the Woodsons, in whose home Moody stored the murder weapon. We see no reason, however, to conclude that demonstrative evidence should be subject to a broader exclusionary rule under these circumstances than is applicable to testimonial evidence—quite the reverse, since coercion of a statement is far less likely to render physical evidence unreliable than it is likely to affect the reliability of trial testimony.
We detect no connection between the asserted coercion of Moody— apparently arising out of offers of leniency in return for his cooperation with the investigating officers—and the reliability of the Woodsons’ testimony at trial, or of the murder weapon or the vehicle, as evidence of defendant’s *? guilt. Indeed, defendant has not contended that there is such a connection. Assuming, without deciding, that in some circumstances physical evidence might be excluded as unreliable as a consequence of the coercion of a third party, we observe that defendant makes no claim that the physical evidence he sought to exclude was unreliable, or that its reliability was in some way affected by any police coercion of Moody. We reject defendant’s contention because he fails to carry the burden of demonstrating any fundamental unfairness at trial. (See People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 348.)
We have acknowledged that in some instances, “courts analyzing claims of third party coercion have expressed some concern to assure the integrity of the judicial system” by vindicating a due process right of the defendant in this context. (People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 347, citing United States v. Chiavola (7th Cir. 1984) 744 F.2d 1271, 1273 ; United States v. Fredericks (5th Cir. 1978) 586 F.2d 470, 481, & fn. 14 ; LaFrance v. Bohlinger (1st Cir. 1974) 499 F.2d 29, 32-34 .) A recent decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, recognizes that the unreliability of a coerced confession of a third person is not the sole reason for its exclusion from evidence: “ ‘It is unthinkable that a statement obtained by torture or by other conduct belonging only in a police state should be admitted at the government’s behest in order to bolster its case. . . . Yet methods offensive when used against an accused do not magically become any less so when exerted against a witness.’ ” (Clanton v. Cooper (10th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 1147, 1158 .)
In the present case, no “ ‘statement obtained by torture or by other conduct belonging only in a police state’ ” (Clanton v. Cooper, supra, 129 F.3d at p. 1158 ) was admitted at trial. The trial court determined that the police did not coerce Moody physically, and the assertedly coerced statement was not admitted at all. Accordingly, we are not called upon to decide whether evidence produced by outrageous police misconduct, but not otherwise shown to be unreliable or subject to the ongoing effects of coercion, should be excluded in order to vindicate the integrity of the judicial system. 9
Defendant fails to demonstrate that his right to a fair trial was undermined by the introduction of physical evidence whose reliability is not questioned, or by the introduction of the testimony of witnesses who were not shown to be subject to any police coercion before or during trial. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence, and we reject defendant’s due process claim.
*969 b. Seizure of defendant’s briefcase
In a motion to suppress evidence brought pursuant to section 1538.5, defendant contended that the seizure of his briefcase and its contents from his sister’s home violated his right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court denied the motion, finding that a warrant authorizing the search of defendant’s Jeep, which had contained the briefcase until it was removed by defendant’s sister, authorized the search of the briefcase; that defendant’s sister consented to the seizure of the briefcase; that the contents of the briefcase inevitably would have been discovered, because a warrant would have issued to authorize the search; and finally, that exigent circumstances justified the search of the briefcase. Defendant contends the trial court erred as to each ground stated in denying the motion to suppress. He also contends that to the extent it found his sister, Diane Jenkins, had consented to the search, the court erred in determining that her consent was voluntary. Respondent contends defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his briefcase, and that the trial court correctly determined that the search was reasonable on the grounds of consent, inevitable discovery, and exigent circumstances. In addition, respondent contends any error in admitting the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the court properly denied the motion to suppress because the search was consensual. In reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, deferring to those express or implied findings of fact supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 182 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ]; People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785 ].) We independently review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. (People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 182 .)
The hearing on the motion to suppress produced the following evidence. Detective Holder of the Los Angeles Police Department served a search warrant at defendant’s residence on November 2, 1985. A neighbor informed him that on the previous evening, some persons had removed property from the residence. The neighbor supplied Holder with the license number of the vehicle used to remove the property. On the following day, Holder, along with several other officers, went to the address where the vehicle was registered. Holder testified that the occupant, Diane Jenkins, who informed Officer Holder that the residence was hers, permitted him to enter when he told her he was conducting an investigation of a murder of a police officer and asked whether he and other officers could come in and *970 look around. He did not have a warrant. Ms. Jenkins consented verbally to the search, and she signed a written form indicating her consent and also noting that she paid the rent on the premises. When Holder asked whether there were weapons in the house, she affirmed that there were, leading him to her bedroom and disclosing the location of two guns she asserted belonged to her boyfriend. Almost simultaneously with his request to conduct the search, Holder asked whether there was any property belonging to her brother, defendant, in the home. Holder believed that she understood he was there to investigate a murder in which her brother might be involved. When Holder asked whether the residence contained any property belonging to her brother, Ms. Jenkins responded that there was a briefcase belonging to him. When she handed the unlocked briefcase to him in her bedroom, he opened it to determine whether it contained firearms, in particular the murder weapon, which to his knowledge had not been recovered. He also examined the contents of the briefcase to aid in identifying additional suspects, finding that it contained a binder with the name Dan on it, various papers, some with names, addresses, and telephone numbers on them, photographs, and a vehicle license. He took the briefcase with him when he left the premises after concluding the search. Ms. Jenkins indicated in writing that the property seized during the search, specifically including the briefcase and its contents, was “given to Detective Holder by me freely without threat or promise.”
Detective Thies testified that he received the briefcase from Holder and examined its contents. It contained a license plate, a phone message retrieval apparatus, a combination knife, brass knuckles, a book containing defendant’s limousine listings, phone bills, a telephone and address book with notations in defendant’s handwriting, another telephone and address book bearing another person’s handwriting, and a business card. In addition, there was a piece of paper bearing Elihue Broomfield’s telephone number. The materials found in the briefcase also contained the telephone numbers of Reecy Cooper and Tyrone Hicks, and the address and telephone number of Anthony Bryant.
Diane Jenkins testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress that she had learned of defendant’s arrest on November 1, 1985, from a person whose identity she could not recall. She did not talk to defendant on that date. At her mother’s request, she picked up defendant’s unlocked Jeep at the San Fernando courthouse, finding the keys under the floor mat. She removed the briefcase from the Jeep and placed it in her residence. She spent the night at defendant’s home, fearing it might be subject to a break-in in his absence. She testified that when Holder arrived at her home on November 2, 1985, she asked whether he had a search warrant, and he responded that he did not, *971 but that unless she consented to a search, he would arrest her on an outstanding traffic warrant and search the premises anyway. She stated that Holder observed the briefcase in her bedroom, seized it, and examined its contents. She testified that she was under duress when she signed the form indicating her consent to the search and the removal of property from her residence.
The trial court stated that it believed several exceptions to the search warrant requirement applied. First, it declared that the officers possessed a warrant to search defendant’s Jeep, and stated its belief that “there is a good argument that that briefcase had been in the car; that the search warrant authorized a search of the car and authorized a search of Mr. Jenkins’s property inside the house; that there actually was a search warrant to cover it.” The court added, “I think the other theory is possibly a consent theory, although I somewhat agree [with defense counsel’s argument] that consent to turn it over or turning it over doesn’t necessarily give consent to open it and to search, in and of itself.” Other theories the court found “possibly applicable” were inevitable discovery and exigent circumstances. With respect to the first, the court explained: “there had been a search warrant for the car and the property. It would not have taken long for them [the police] to have gotten a search warrant and opened the briefcase.” With respect to the second, it explained: “I really do think that the emergency exception, the exigent circumstances exception, applies when you have a nine-millimeter weapon outstanding that has yet to be found. And based on the information in the affidavit, there was a very good chance that it might have been found within the briefcase.”
The Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against unreasonable intrusion on the part of the government. A warrant is required unless certain exceptions apply, including the exception that permits consensual searches. (Florida v. Jimeno (1991) 500 U.S. 248, 250-251 [ 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803-1804 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 ]; In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, 79 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 876 P.2d 519 ].)
As the high court has explained: “The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. [Citation.] The Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all state-initiated searches and seizures; it merely proscribes those which are unreasonable.” (Florida v. Jimeno, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 250 [ 111 S.Ct. at p. 1803 ].) A warrantless search may be reasonable not only if the defendant consents to the search, but also if a person other than the defendant with authority over the premises voluntarily consents to the search. (United States v. Matlock (1974) 415 U.S. 164, 170-171 [ 94 S.Ct. 988, 992-993 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 ] [person sharing a bedroom with defendant had *972 authority to consent to a search of the premises and diaper bag found therein]; see also Frazier v. Cupp (1969) 394 U.S. 731, 740 [ 89 S.Ct. 1420, 1425 , 22 L.Ed.2d 684 ] [cousin had authority to consent to search of the defendant’s duffel bag, which both men used and which had been left in the cousin’s home].)
Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated that “in order to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable; i.e., one which has ‘a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.’ ” (Minnesota v. Carter (1998) 525 U.S. 83, 88 [ 119 S.Ct. 469 , 472, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 ], quoting Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128, 134 [ 99 S.Ct. 421, 425-426 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ].) The defendant must assert a reasonable expectation of privacy in “ ‘the particular area searched or thing seized in order to bring a Fourth Amendment challenge.’ ” (People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1171 , italics in original.)
A defendant has the burden at trial of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the thing seized. (See Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. at pp. 130-131, fn. 1, 134 [ 99 S.Ct. at p. 424, 425-426 ]; see also People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1172 .) The prosecution has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of a warrantless search. (See People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1300 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 756 P.2d 221 ]; see also United States v. Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at pp. 171, 177 [94 S.Ct. at pp. 993, 996].) The state may carry its burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of a search by demonstrating that the officer conducting the search had a reasonable belief that the person consenting to the search had authority to do so; it is not required that the state establish that the person consenting to the search had actual authority to consent. (Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) 497 U.S. 177, 186 [ 110 S.Ct. 2793, 2800 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 ]; see also People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 481 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 323 , 729 P.2d 757 ]; People v. Bishop (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 220, 236 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 ].)
Defendant failed to assert that he had any possessory interest or legitimate expectation of privacy in his sister’s home, so he failed to establish that the search of the home itself violated his own constitutional rights.
Defendant did, however, assert that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his briefcase, and we assume for the purpose of this appeal that he *973 carried his burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in that object. 10 Nonetheless, we conclude that the search of the briefcase was reasonable by virtue of defendant’s sister’s voluntary consent to the search.
At the outset, defendant contends that his sister’s consent to search her home and the briefcase was not voluntary. (See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 227 [ 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2048-2049 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 ] [whether consent was voluntary or was the product of coercion on the part of searching officers is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances].) The evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress was in sharp conflict on this point. Detective Holder testified that defendant’s sister was friendly and cooperative, and readily consented to the search without the application of any pressure on the part of the police. He denied threatening her with arrest. She memorialized her consent in writing, stating that it was freely given. Ms. Jenkins testified, however, that her consent to the search was coerced by a threat to arrest her on an outstanding warrant if she refused to supply her consent. We view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, deferring to those express or implied findings of fact supported by substantial evidence. (See People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 182 ; People v. Miranda, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at pp.921-922.) It is evident from the trial court’s reliance upon consent as a justification for the search that the trial court resolved in favor of the prosecution the factual dispute regarding the circumstances under which Ms. Jenkins granted her consent, and did not credit her testimony that her consent was the product of a threat to arrest her. We defer to this implied factual determination, which is supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, we reject defendant’s contention that Ms. Jenkins’s consent to the search was involuntary.
We next turn to the question whether the voluntary consent given by Ms. Jenkins established the search as reasonable. Ms. Jenkins clearly had authority to consent to a search of her own apartment—a place in which defendant had no possessory interest. In some circumstances, however, the consent to a search given by a person with authority to consent to a search of the premises does not necessarily supply consent to search personal property found within the premises. As Justice O’Connor explained in her concurring opinion in United States v. Karo (1984) 468 U.S. 705, 725 [ 104 S.Ct. 3296, *974 3308 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 ], “[a] privacy interest in a home itself need not be coextensive with a privacy interest in the contents ... of everything situated inside the home. This has been recognized before in connection with third-party consent to searches. A homeowner’s consent to a search of the home may not be effective consent to a search of a closed object inside the home. Consent to search a container or a place is effective only when given by one with ‘common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.’ United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S., at 171 [ 94 S.Ct. at p. 993 ]. ‘Common authority . . . rests ... on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes . . . .’ Id., at 171, n. 7 [ 94 S.Ct. at p. 993 ].”
As this language indicates, at least two questions are presented when the state seeks to justify a warrantless search by relying upon the consent of a third party who is the occupant of the premises searched: whether the third party had authority to consent to the search, and whether the scope of the consent given included the object or container that was searched. In the resolution of these questions, as noted, the state may carry its burden by demonstrating that it was objectively reasonable for the searching officer to believe that the person giving consent had authority to do so, and to believe that the scope of the consent given encompassed the item searched. (Florida v. Jimeno, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 251 [111 S.Ct. at pp. 1803-1804] [scope of consent may be established by showing that the searching officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe the consent included the item searched]; Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra, 497 U.S. at p. 186 [ 110 S.Ct. at p. 2800 ] [search may be reasonable if officer had an objectively reasonable belief that the person consenting to the search had authority to do so].)
In Florida v. Jimeno, supra, 500 U.S. 248 , the high court explained that the scope of consent usually is defined by the expressed object of the search. (Id. at p. 251 [111 S.Ct. at pp. 1803-1804].) In that case, where a police officer stopped a vehicle, informing the occupant of the officer’s suspicion that the vehicle contained narcotics, the driver’s consent to a search of the vehicle reasonably could be understood to include within its scope the search of a closed paper bag discovered within the vehicle. The standard for measuring the scope of consent, the court said, is to ask “what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect.” (Ibid.) The court pointed out that in granting permission to search the vehicle, the defendant “did not place any explicit limitation on the scope of the search.” (Ibid.) The officer had informed the defendant he believed the defendant was carrying narcotics, and that the officer would be looking for narcotics. The court concluded: “We think that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general *975 consent to search respondent’s car included consent to search containers within that car which might bear drugs. A reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally carried in some form of a container. . . . The authorization to search in this case, therefore, extended beyond the surfaces of the car’s interior to the paper bag lying on the car’s floor.” (Ibid.)
Although the court cautioned that the defendant’s consent probably would not extend to a locked briefcase in the trunk of the car, the court rejected the defendant’s contention that the police must request separate permission to search each container in the area to be searched. (Florida v. Jimeno, supra, 500 U.S. at pp. 251-252 [111 S.Ct. at pp 1803-1804].) The court found no basis for adding such a requirement, observing that although a suspect may limit the scope of consent, if consent reasonably would be understood to extend to a container, no further authorization is required. (Id. at p. 252 [ 111 S.Ct. at p. 1804 ].) The court relied upon the public’s interest in permitting consensual searches, stating that “ ‘[t]he community has a real interest in encouraging consent, for the resulting search may yield necessary evidence for the solution and prosecution of crime, evidence that may insure that a wholly innocent person is not wrongly charged with a criminal offense.’ ” (Ibid.)
Other courts and commentators have observed that open-ended consent to search normally does not suggest that the person consenting would expect the search to be limited in any way, and that a general consent to search includes consent to pursue the stated object of the search by opening closed containers. (See People v. $48,715 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1515 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 ] [consent to search vehicle for drugs included seed bags and suitcases, or any area of the vehicle that might contain drugs]; U.S. v. Stewart (5th Cir. 1996) 93 F.3d 189, 192 [consent to “look at” medicine bottle includes consent to examine contents]; U.S. v. Snow (2d Cir. 1995) 44 F.3d 133, 135 [consent to search vehicle for drugs includes consent to open and search a duffel bag inside the vehicle]; U.S. v. Zapata (1st Cir. 1994) 18 F.3d 971, 977 [consent to search vehicle includes consent to search duffel bag found in trunk]; 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure (3d ed.1996) § 8.1(c), p. 613 [general consent ordinarily may be understood to extend to an examination—in furtherance of the object of the search—of closed containers found in the area, “particularly if the police have indicated they are searching for a small object which might be concealed in such a container”]; see also Erwin et al., Cal. Criminal Defense Practice (1998 ed.) § 22.02[6], pp. 22-31 to 22-32 [consent to search generally implies consent to a complete search, unless a limitation is expressed]; but see U.S. v. Infante-Ruiz (1st Cir. 1994) 13 F.3d 498, 504-505 [when third party consent *976 to search a vehicle and trunk is qualified by a warning that the briefcase belonged to another, officers could not assume without further inquiry that the consent extended to the briefcase].) 11
Under the circumstances of the present case, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to conclude that the scope of Diane Jenkins’s consent included the briefcase. Detective Holder explained to Ms. Jenkins that he was investigating the murder of a police officer—an investigation that reasonably would be understood as involving an intensive search for such objects as weapons. When she granted open-ended consent to the search of her home, she had been informed that the officer was seeking evidence concerning her brother. In addition, having supplied consent to search, when asked whether any of her brother’s belongings were in her home, she handed the officer her brother’s briefcase. (See, e.g., People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 217, fn. 14 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 426 , 821 P.2d 1302 ] [third party’s consent to search her own purse, with statement that wallet contained therein was defendant’s, arguably extends the scope of consent to include the wallet].) Her written consent indicated express consent to search her home, and included a statement that the briefcase had been given to Holder freely, without threat or promise. As noted, Holder was not required to seek separate consent for each container searched, providing the search otherwise was reasonable. (Florida v. Jimeno, supra, 500 U.S. at pp. 251-252 [111 S.Ct. at pp. 1803-1804].)
A briefcase obviously is a container that readily may contain incriminating evidence, including weapons. Because the announced object of the search was evidence connected with the murder of a police officer—thus including weapons that could be hidden in a briefcase—and involving her brother, Ms. Jenkins’s consent to search her home and her action in disclosing the location of the briefcase, identifying it as her brother’s, and handing it to the police officer would be understood by a reasonable person to include consent to search the briefcase.
As for Ms. Jenkins’s authority to consent to the search of defendant’s briefcase, it is settled that “the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.” (United States v. Matlock, *977 supra, 415 U.S. at p. 170 [ 94 S.Ct. at p. 993 ].) For example, in the Matlock case, the high court determined that the consent of a tenant who shared a bedroom with the defendant and was told that the police were searching for stolen currency was effective to justify a search of the bedroom, including a diaper bag found in a closet. (Id. at pp. 166-167 [94 S.Ct. at pp. 990-991].) The court explained that the consent of a third party may be valid if that party “possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.” (Id., at p. 171 [ 94 S.Ct. at p. 993 ]; see also People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 979 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ]; People v. Jacobs, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 481 .)
Applying these rules, courts have determined in various circumstances that third parties were authorized to consent to a search of luggage, bags, or other personal belongings of a defendant. (U.S. v. Davis (2d Cir. 1992) 967 F.2d 84 , 85, 86-87 [tenant has authority to consent to search of footlocker shared with defendant and of containers belonging to defendant found within the footlocker]; United States v. Falcon (10th Cir. 1985) 766 F.2d 1469, 1474 [brother’s consent to examination of defendant’s audiotape marked “confidential” was authorized because the tape was discovered in a room occupied solely by the brother, and the brother had exclusive control over its contents]; United States v. Miroff (7th Cir. 1979) 606 F.2d 777, 778-779 [“dominant” occupant of premises authorized to consent to search of defendant guests’ personal belongings found in area subject to common use, especially because guests assumed the risk of inspection by assuring occupant there was nothing illicit therein]; State v. Schadd (1981) 129 Ariz. 557 [ 633 P.2d 366, 372 ] [girlfriend authorized to consent to search of defendant’s wallet, on ground that defendant assumed the risk she would permit inspection when he gave it to her]; Johnson v. State (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1988) 519 So.2d 713, 714 [third party in whose possession defendant had left a suitcase had authority to consent to a search of the suitcase he identified as belonging to defendant]; U.S. v. Salinas-Cano (10th Cir. 1992) 959 F.2d 861, 865 [not reasonable for officer to believe defendant’s girlfriend had authority to consent to search of defendant’s luggage found in her home when there was no evidence of mutual use or joint interest and control over the suitcase]; Owens v. State (1991) 322 Md. 616 [ 589 A.2d 59, 66-67 ] [officers could not reasonably believe occupant of apartment had authority to consent to search of luggage left behind by visitor, because there was no evidence of common authority over the bag].)
The question before us is whether the “facts available to the officer at the moment . . . [would] ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the consenting party had authority” over the property as to which consent is given. (Illinois v. Rodriguez, supra, 497 U.S. at p. 188 [ 110 *978 S.Ct. at p. 2801 ].) Under the circumstances of the present case, it was objectively reasonable to conclude Diane Jenkins had authority to consent to the search of defendant’s briefcase, because it was reasonable for the officers to believe she had exercised control over the briefcase and had not only joint, but at the time of the search, exclusive access to it and control over it. It is reasonable to conclude that a family member who officers believe has retrieved a brother’s belongings from his premises and stored such belongings in her own bedroom has at the very least joint access to and control over the belongings. Under the circumstances known to the officers at the time of the search—that shortly after defendant’s arrest, items were removed in a vehicle registered to Diane Jenkins from the area named in a search warrant directed at defendant’s residence and vehicles, and that the only item belonging to him remaining in her home was the briefcase—it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that Diane Jenkins had secured the briefcase at her brother’s behest. Such a request, of course, would impose upon defendant the risk that Diane Jenkins might consent to a search of the briefcase. (See, e.g., Frazier v. Cupp, supra, 394 U.S. at p. 740 [ 89 S.Ct. at p. 1425 ] [defendant, in permitting third party to use a duffel bag and in leaving the bag at the home of the third party, “assumed the risk that [the third party] would allow someone else to look inside”]; see also United States v. Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at p. 171, fn. 7 [ 94 S.Ct. at p. 993 ]; People v. Jacobs, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 481 ; U.S. v. Davis, supra, 967 F.2d at p. 88.)
Some lower federal courts have asserted that authority to consent to a search depends in part upon a showing that the person consenting enjoyed not only access to and control over, but also mutual use of the property searched. (See, e.g., U.S. v. Whitfield (D.C. Cir. 1991) 939 F.2d 1071, 1074 [ 291 App.D.C. 243 ] [mother lacked apparent authority to consent to search of adult son’s bedroom without evidence that she enjoyed common use of the room and closet in which contraband was found]; see also U.S. v. Welch (9th Cir. 1993) 4 F.3d 761, 764 [third party who jointly had rented vehicle with defendant had authority to consent to a search of the vehicle but lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to a search of the defendant’s purse located in the trunk of the vehicle, because there was no evidence of joint access or control or use of the purse]; U.S. v. Salinas-Cano, supra, 959 F.2d at p. 863 [girlfriend lacked apparent authority to consent to search of defendant’s suitcase left in her home, when he slept in the home several nights a week and maintained control over the suitcase, and there was no evidence his girlfriend used the suitcase].)
The cases cited rely upon a footnote appearing in United States v. Matlock : “Common authority is, of course, not to be implied from the mere property interest a third party has in the property. The authority which *979 justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, see Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 [ 81 S.Ct. 776 , 5 L.Ed.2d 828 ] (landlord could not validly consent to the search of a house he had rented to another), Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 [ 84 S.Ct. 889 , 11 L.Ed.2d 856 ] (night hotel clerk could not validly consent to search of customer’s room) but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.” (United States v. Matlock, supra, 415 U.S. at p. 171, fn. 7 [ 94 S.Ct. at p. 993 ].)
This language, read in conjunction with the cases cited, however, addresses the problem of the authority of an owner, manager, or co-occupant of premises to consent to a search of those premises. In such a case, mutual use of the premises would be significant in establishing a third party’s authority to consent to a search of the premises, because it certainly is not the case that every owner of property may consent to a search of his or her tenant’s home. We do not believe, however, that the United States Supreme Court intended to require that in every circumstance in which a third party occupant of premises consents to the search of personal property of another located on the premises, authority to consent to search depends upon the third party’s actual mutual use of the personal property, in addition to access to and control over the property. As we have explained, “objects left in an area of common use or control may be within the scope of the consent given by a third party for a search of the common area.” (People v. Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 979 .)
We believe that when the person who consents to the search enjoys a possessory interest that the defendant does not share in the premises searched and also enjoys apparent joint or exclusive access to and control over the personal property searched, the privacy interest of the owner of the closed container or other personal property is far reduced and the authority of a third party to consent to a search may be established. (See United States v. Falcon, supra, 766 F.2d at p. 1474 ; United States v. Miroff, supra, 606 F.2d at pp. 778-779; see also People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1172 [defendant retained no expectation of privacy when he rid himself of a crime weapon by giving it to the occupant of the premises searched].) It can hardly be the case, for example, that the police would be unreasonable in acceding to the request of the sole occupant of a home to search luggage under the occupant’s control but belonging to another in order to exonerate the occupant or protect him or her from hazard. (See, e.g., Com. v. Latshaw (1978) *980 481 Pa. 298 [ 392 A.2d 1301, 1306-1307 ] [owner of barn, who suspected that containers found therein belonging to another contained contraband, was authorized to consent to a police search of the containers].) The high court has made clear that one basis for the consent exception to the warrant requirement is to serve the community’s interest in producing “ ‘necessary evidence for the solution and prosecution of crime, evidence that may insure that a wholly innocent person is not wrongly charged with a criminal offense.’” (Florida v. Jimeno, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 252 [ 111 S.Ct. at p. 1804 ].)
Accordingly, although the searching officer had little reason to suppose that Diane Jenkins herself was using defendant’s briefcase, this circumstance does not require us to conclude the officer lacked a reasonable basis for believing she had authority to consent to a search of the briefcase, when the facts known to him indicated she had exercised control over the briefcase in the manner shown by the testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress.
Defendant asserts that it is never reasonable for a police officer to conclude that a third party has authority to consent to a search when the personal property searched is identified as belonging to another person, but this claim is without merit. Although a third party who is the subject of a search and admonishes an officer that a bag belongs to someone else may be understood to deny joint access and control over the property (see U.S. v. Jaras (5th Cir. 1996) 86 F.3d 383, 389 ), or to limit the scope of his or her consent (see U.S. v. Infante-Ruiz, supra, 13 F.3d at pp. 504-505), a third party who responds to a search focused upon the defendant by handing over the defendant’s belongings that are in the third party’s exclusive possession and control may create a reasonable belief on the part of the searching officer that the third party has authority to consent to the search. (United States v. Falcon, supra, 766 F.2d at p. 1474 [rejecting the claim that it necessarily is unreasonable to search property identified as belonging to another]; United States v. Carter (4th Cir. 1977) 569 F.2d 801, 804-805 [same]; United States v. Buckles (8th Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 1377, 1382 [same]; Johnson v. State, supra, 519 So.2d at p. 714 [same].)
We conclude the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress and that no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred. 12
10. Claim of denial of representative jury
In providing jury panels from which defendant’s jury would be selected, the trial court ordered the Jury Commissioner of Los Angeles *981 County to select jurors from within a 20-mile radius of the Van Nuys courthouse, where the trial was held. Prospective jurors were selected on October 13, 14, and 15, 1987, but only on October 14 did the jury commissioner’s office employ the method of selection ordered by the court. On October 13 and 15, prospective jurors were selected by the so-called bull’s-eye method. 13 Under this county wide method, the jury commissioner explained: “[T]he computer is asked to randomly select jurors from this pool of qualified prospective jurors .... [¶] Let’s assume that we have out of the possible 32 court locations, Los Angeles County where jurors can be assigned, that we have 10 court locations [needing jurors]. A juror will be by computer randomly selected, . . . and then [the computer] asks of these are any of these courts within 20 miles of this person’s residence? And then if the answer is yes, then assign that juror to the closest court of those courts that are within 20 miles.”
The defendant made a motion to quash the venire on the ground it did not constitute a representative cross-section of the community. In a hearing on the motion, the jury commissioner testified that 9.9 percent of the population living within a 20-mile radius of the Van Nuys courthouse and presumptively eligible for jury service was African-American. A defense expert testified, on the other hand, that the percentage of African-American persons living within that radius was 10.18 percent. On October 13, the percentage of African-American persons called for service in defendant’s case was 1.87 percent, and on October 15, it was 2.07 percent. On October 14, 6.43 percent of the persons called for service in defendant’s case were African-American. Accordingly, as the trial court stated and defendant concedes, 4.5 percent of the total number of prospective jurors available to serve in panels from which defendant was to select his jury were African-American.
Defendant’s expert testified that the bull’s-eye method described above produced an underrepresentation of African-American persons compared with their presence in the 20-mile radius of the Van Nuys courthouse, and the expert outlined an alternative method of selecting the jury venire based upon census tracts that would readily produce a representative venire.
The trial court denied the motion to quash, determining that the difference between the percentage of African-American prospective jurors (4.5 percent) in defendant’s case, and the percentage of African-American persons eligible for jury duty in the 20-mile area served by the Van Nuys courthouse (9.9 percent) was not statistically significant. In addition, the trial court determined that defendant had failed to establish systematic exclusion of a *982 cognizable class, because the county’s use of Department of Motor Vehicles and voter registration lists indicated that the county was doing all that reasonably could be expected to achieve a fair cross-section.
Defendant renews his claim that his federal constitutional right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community was violated. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 358-367 [ 99 S.Ct. 664, 665-670 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ].) That right guarantees “that the pools from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community. [Citation.] ‘In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.’ [Citations.] The relevant ‘community ’ for cross-section purposes is the judicial district in which the case is tried.” (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1087-1088 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , 906 P.2d 478 ], italics added, quoting Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 364 [ 99 S.Ct. at p. 668 ].) Defendant contends the method employed to select the venire from which his panels were drawn systematically caused underrepresentation of African-American persons.
Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of systematic underrepresentation of a cognizable class, because he failed to refer to the appropriate community in attempting to prove the denial of a representative jury venire. He attempted to meet the second prong of the Duren test by demonstrating a disparity between the percentage of African-American persons in the venire and the percentage of African-American persons eligible for jury service who lived within 20 miles of the Van Nuys courthouse. As noted, the appropriate community with which to establish such a comparison was the judicial district in which the Van Nuys courthouse is situated. (People v. Horton, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 1087-1088; People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 844 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 802 , 789 P.2d 983 ]; Williams v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 736, 745 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 781 P.2d 537 ],) 14 In any event, as the trial court found, there was insufficient showing that any underrepresentation was due to a systematic exclusion. For these reasons, defendant failed to make the prima facie showing required by *983 Duren , and his claim accordingly is rejected. (People v. Horton, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 1088-1090; People v. Mattson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 844.)
11. Claim of juror contamination
Defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because during jury selection, when evidence came to light suggesting that jurors were in fear of him, the trial court failed to question the jurors adequately regarding their fears and erroneously denied his motion for mistrial.
The record reflects that Prospective Juror Hw., who ultimately was excused for cause, stated to the court outside the presence of other prospective jurors that on the preceding night she had received a telephone call from Ms. Hv., a prospective juror on the panel who was not selected to serve on defendant’s jury, in which Hv. informed her that the judge presiding in defendant’s case had received death threats and was being protected by a bodyguard at all times. After Prospective Juror Hw. had left the courtroom, the prosecutor informed the court that there had been threats against him and another deputy district attorney in this case, though none were traced to defendant, but that with defendant’s history of attacking witnesses and shooting people who “tell against him,” it was inevitable that jurors would be fearful. The prosecutor warned: “[I]f we are going to be excusing jurors because they are frightened, we are not going to have a jury because they are going to be frightened.” The trial court then informed Hw. that it had not received any threats and did not have a bodyguard. Hw. then volunteered that Hv. also had informed her that an acquaintance had taken the trial judge to the crime scene, that the judge did not want to be involved with this case because it involved gangs and cocaine, and that Hv. noted that some witnesses were in the witness protection program. Hw. said she did not recall Hv. saying anything in the presence of other prospective jurors about the case, but noted Hv. did have some contact with another prospective juror, Ms. Mh. Hw. stated she had been very frightened after the conversation with Hv. The trial court assured her the rumors she had heard were false.
The trial court, outside the presence of the jury, stated it would be necessary to question Hv., to warn her not to contact anyone else, and to question the remainder of the jurors to be certain they had not had any contact with Hv.
Upon questioning, Hv. admitted telephoning Hw. and telling her the judge was under 24-hour protection due to threats. Hv. stated she had heard this information from her employer, and also from another prospective juror who *984 made the assertion in her presence and that of other prospective jurors. On one or two occasions she heard prospective jurors state they were afraid to serve in this case. She also recalled other jurors stating that defendant was paying for his own attorney and that defense counsel was driving a new Jaguar. She asserted she had not telephoned any prospective juror other than Hw. The court ordered her not to contact anyone involved in the case.
The trial court initially denied defendant’s motion to excuse for cause, but the following day determined that Juror Hw. would be excused.
The trial court also examined Prospective Juror Mh., who also had been excused. She stated that Hv. had told her that the court had been threatened and had 24-hour security. She recounted hearing Hv. make this statement in a hallway where a group of 10 to 12 prospective jurors could have heard it. She heard this rumor from no other source, and heard no discussion about the case among other prospective jurors. Some prospective jurors did seem uneasy, simply because of the nature of the case. The suggestion that the trial court was in need of additional security made Mh. uneasy.
The trial court concluded that Hv. was not worthy of belief and suggested that she. had been disingenuous in attempting to exonerate herself for her misconduct in telephoning Hw. to discuss the case. The court stated that “in an abundance of caution” it would ask each juror if he or she had heard the statement Mh. alleged Hv. had made in the hallway in the hearing of other prospective jurors.
The trial court stated it would inquire of the remaining jurors whether they had heard Hv. say anything about the case or had heard other prospective jurors talk about the case other than in the most general terms. Eleven of the jurors who served on the case indicated they had not heard other prospective jurors discuss the case and were not present when a prospective juror who was excused mentioned something related to the case in the hearing of other prospective jurors. (The remaining jurors and alternates had been selected after Ms. Hv. had been excused.) The trial court rejected defense counsel’s request that the jurors be questioned regarding rumors of threats against the court and other grounds for fearing defendant. The trial court explained that in its view, such questions would prejudice otherwise untainted jurors by giving rise to fears and speculation that otherwise would not exist.
Defendant made a motion for mistrial on the grounds that the prospective jurors may have been contaminated by rumors about threats against the court, and that the court’s questioning of the jurors had not been sufficiently detailed to expose or counteract such contamination. Defendant’s motion for *985 mistrial was denied. Defendant renewed the motion for further questioning of the jury, again maintaining that the jurors should have been asked specifically whether they had heard of threats to the trial judge. The court denied the renewed motion, observing that it thought Hv. was lying about having heard about threats against the court from other persons, and that she “was lying to cover herself for having opened her mouth.”
We have explained that “[a] trial court must conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine facts alleged as juror misconduct ‘whenever the court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist.’ ” (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 547 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826 , 896 P.2d 119 ].) The trial court in the present case conducted an inquiry sufficient to determine that excused Prospective Juror Hv.’s communications to Prospective Juror Hw. required that the latter be excused for cause and to satisfy itself that the remainder of the prospective jurors had not been exposed to prejudicial rumors or heard Hv.’s comments about threats against the trial court. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the court did not confine itself to asking prospective jurors whether they had heard any discussion of the facts of the case, a question defendant claims might have been interpreted as referring only to the circumstances of the crime. The court repeatedly asked whether jurors had heard discussion of the facts of the case or anything else relating to the case. In addition, the court asked the prospective jurors whether they had heard a prospective juror who was subsequently excused make comments in front of a group of 10 to 12 jurors, and also asked the prospective jurors whether they had heard others make any personal remarks about the attorneys. The court, in asking whether jurors had heard discussion of anything relating to the case, noted that it was not referring to matters such as scheduling or delays in the trial. Under the circumstances, no juror would have understood that the court’s questions were restricted to discussion of the crime itself. In addition, the court acted within its discretion in determining that more pointed questions regarding alleged threats against the court would serve to alarm the prospective jurors rather than to uncover prejudice or allay fears. (See, e.g., People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 928 [applying abuse of discretion standard to claimed failure to conduct hearing adequate to determine whether juror should be discharged for misconduct]; see also People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 343 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 , 914 P.2d 846 ] [decision whether to investigate juror bias is within sound discretion of trial court]; People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 ] [it is within court’s discretion to determine what procedure to employ or inquiry to conduct to determine whether juror should be discharged].)
A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We have explained that “[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is *986 apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.” (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ].) The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in the present case. The prospective jurors directly implicated in the rumors regarding threats against the court did not serve on defendant’s jury, and the remaining jurors, when questioned, gave no indication that they had heard the rumors or that their impartiality was impaired. The court admonished each juror not to discuss the case with the others and instructed the jury to decide the case upon the facts presented at trial and not based upon any other source. The record demonstrates the absence of any incurable prejudice of the sort that would require the granting of a motion for mistrial. (See Illinois v. Somerville (1973) 410 U.S. 458, 461-462 [ 93 S.Ct. 1066, 1069 , 35 L.Ed.2d 425 ] [noting trial court’s broad discretion in ruling on mistrial motions].) For the same reasons, we reject defendant’s contentions that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial and thereby impaired his right to due process of law or to an impartial jury.
12. Claims that various alleged errors committed during jury selection violated defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury, due process, and a reliable verdict
a. Challenges for cause
Defendant contends that the court erred during jury selection in ruling on various challenges for cause. Specifically, he contends that the court erred in sustaining the prosecutor’s challenges to Prospective Jurors Wt., St., and Mn., 15 jurors whom defendant characterizes as “life-prone,” and in applying an inconsistent standard in overruling defense challenges to 13 other prospective jurors whom defendant characterizes as “death-prone.” Defendant contends the trial court was not evenhanded in applying the standards set out in Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412 [ 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 ] for determining whether a prospective juror should be excused on the basis of views of capital punishment that would prevent or substantially impair the juror’s ability to perform his or her duties.
*987 Applying Wainwright v. Witt, supra, 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 105 S.Ct. 844, 852 ], we have stated that “ ‘[i]n a capital case, a prospective juror may be excluded if the juror’s views on capital punishment would “prevent or substantially impair” the performance of the juror’s duties.’ [Citations.] ‘A prospective juror is properly excluded if he or she is unable to conscientiously consider all of the sentencing alternatives, including the death penalty where appropriate.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1114.) In addition, “ ‘[o]n appeal, we will uphold the trial court’s ruling if it is fairly supported by the record, accepting as binding the trial court’s determination as to the prospective juror’s true state of mind when the prospective juror has made statements that are conflicting or ambiguous.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
Prospective Juror Wt. gave conflicting answers to questions regarding his attitude toward the death penalty, but ended with the observation that there were no circumstances under which he would vote to impose the death penalty. The trial court also indicated that it believed the juror was mentally impaired and “clearly was not going to be able to deal with this subject intelligently. And he was not going to be able to perform his duties as a juror.” Under the circumstances, we see no error in excusing the juror.
Prospective Juror St. was excused for cause not because of his views regarding the death penalty, but because the trial court concluded he was mentally incompetent to perform the duties of a juror. The court stated: “I think he just is not competent to serve as a juror based on his answers to the questions, his answers in his questionnaire. And I’m going to exercise my discretion and excuse him .... I think he’s crazy. I hate to be so blunt. I think he is mentally disturbed or mentally off and I am not going to have a mentally off juror .... This man is substantially impaired, mentally impaired serving as a juror .... My judgment is in viewing him and listening to him and observing him, there is something mentally wrong with him and I’m going to exercise my discretion and I’m going to excuse him.” The indications on the face of the record that seem to have formed the basis for this conclusion are that the prospective juror believed that the most effective protection against crime was to rely upon an aura of light he believed surrounds each person. The prospective juror stated: “It’s like it’s their life energy. And this bubble of white light is like a healing light that helps to protect them.” In addition, the trial court apparently was disturbed by the prospective juror’s repeated reference to following the dictates of his “inner voice.” The juror could not predict the influence of this voice or *988 intuition upon his deliberations as a juror. 16 The trial court might have impaired the defendant’s right to be tried by a competent tribunal had it not granted the challenge for cause against a juror whom the court believed to be unable to deliberate rationally. (See Jordan v. Com. of Massachusetts (1912) 225 U.S. 167, 176 [ 32 S.Ct. 651, 652 , 56 L.Ed. 1038 ]; People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 144 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; U. S. v. Hall (4th Cir. 1993) 989 F.2d 711, 714 ; see also Code Civ. Proc., former § 198, subd. (a)(2), as amended by Stats. 1986, ch. 1171, § 1, p. 4165 [defining a “competent” juror as someone “[i]n possession of his or her natural faculties and of ordinary intelligence”].) 17 This question is peculiarly one involving the trial court’s ability to assess the prospective juror’s demeanor (see Wainwright v. Witt, supra, 469 U.S. at p. 428 [ 105 S.Ct. at p. 854 ]), and we should uphold the trial court’s ruling if it is fairly supported by the record. (See People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1114.) In the present instance, the trial court’s assessment of the prospective juror’s inability to carry out the duties of a juror in a rational manner is adequately supported by the record.
Defendant objects that the trial court acted upon a prejudice against mystical religious beliefs in excusing St. rather than upon a well-founded belief that the prospective juror was mentally unbalanced or unable to perform the duties of a juror. He contends that this action on the p
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.