Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

No. The prosecutor cannot tilt the jury in his favor by weeding out those who consider the weakest part of his case important. (The defense is likewise not allowed to tilt the jury by doing the opposite.)

When I answered your prior question I explained that the cause of death is relevant to murder cases even though it isn't something the D.A. is actually required to prove. Jurors are allowed to consider the absence of relevant evidence when they decide a case. In the Anthony case, the prosecutor's evidence about a relevant issue was weak. If he was going to overcome that weakness he had to do so by providing other persuasive evidence, not by eliminating jurors who would focus on the weakest aspects of his case.

Even if the D.A. *wanted* to do this, the decision would not have been his to make. It is the judge who decides whether a juror should be excused for cause. He must make these decisions even-handedly, without preference for either side. Doing what you describe would have favored the prosecution over the defense and would have been improper.

Besides, whether a particular issue proves to be important will depend upon what evidence is presented and what is not. Prospective jurors who have not yet seen the evidence have no way to say what will seem important to them at the end of the trial. I explained before that the cause of death may be virtually irrelevant in some cases and critically important in others, giving examples of each. There is no way even someone well-versed in the law can say whether the cause of death will matter until after the evidence has been presented.