Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

before the panel was sworn. Marin did question him after the panel was sworn,

and juror 71 indicated again that he was a friend of a woman in the county

prosecutor's office. Marin did not ask juror 71 whether he thought that friendship

would affect his ability to judge the case fairly. The record shows the trial court

ensured Marin had "reasonable time to discover any prejudices."

Second, the record does not support Marin's contention that the trial court

"reduced the allotted voir dire time." Marin initially used his allotted 30 minutes.

And after juror 71 e-mailed the court, reraising his issue, the trial court granted

Marin additional time. The court's decision to count that additional time against

Marin's trial time was within its discretion to manage the courtroom and ensure

impartial jury selection "'with reasonable expedition.'"48

Finally, Marin established no grounds for cause for dismissing juror 71 at

the end of trial. Marin does not address the elements of a for-cause challenge,

and Marin's questioning did not establish juror 71's inability to judge the case

fairly.

Admission of McClung Testimony

Marin also challenges the trial court's admission of Dr. McClung's

testimony.

48 Brady. 116 Wn. App. at 146-47 (quoting Frederiksen. 40 Wn. App. at
753).
-21-
             

No. 72666-8-1/22

To bring a claim for failure to accommodate, Marin had to show he had a

medical condition "that substantially limited his . . . ability to perform the job."49

He also needed to show he was "qualified to perform the essential functions of

the job."50 Qualified expert testimony is admissible where it "will assist the trier of