Analysis/Commentary:  The issues are whether the right to a public trial is violated when jurors are examined in chambers and defendant answers that he agreed that his attorney had discussed private examination with him; whether his counsel was ineffective by not challenging a juror for cause when the juror indicated being a victim of child abuse; by not objecting to credibility and impeachment evidence; and whether imposing polygraph and plethysmograph testing and no unpermitted internet use is a lawful community custody condition.

            Mr. Castro was accused of molesting his stepgrandaughter. At trial, the judge inquired of Mr. Castro about the in chambers examination of jurors during voir and reviewed the factors outlined in In re Orange, 152 Wn2d 795, 100 P3d 291 (2005) which are: a compelling interest, the opportunity for objections, least restrictive means available to protect the threatened interest, weighing the threatened interest against the public trial right and tailoring to insure the narrowest limitation of threatened interest.  One of the jurors indicated on the questionnaire that she had been molested but could be impartial.  During testimony, one witness testified that she wrote a letter to another witness complaining that that witness did not believe the child victim.  The witness then testified for the defense that she did believe the child victim.  There was also evidence that Mr. Castro drank alcohol and Mr. Castro did not understand English.

            The COA analyzed these issues for possible trial strategies.  The COA held that it is a legitimate trial strategy to not challenge a juror when the juror says she can be impartial.  It is also a legitimate trial strategy to present conflicting evidence of statements made by witnesses and even if the testimony was an indirect comment on the child victim’s credibility, Mr. Castro “cannot show that . . . failure to object . . . was not a trial strategy intended to discredit . . . testimony”.     The COA decided that the alcohol impeachment evidence was not improper since the defense raised it and the impeachment evidence about the non-English speaking defendant  was relevant because he told the police he didn’t speak or read English and a witness testified Mr. Castro could read English though he spoke Spanglish.  There was no error. 

            As to the sentencing conditions, community custody conditions can be any affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the court’s order.  The ordering of the plethysmograph and no internet use without DOC permission is allowed as a condition.