Due process does not require the trial court to question the jurors alleged to have bias every time a claim of juror bias is raised. Here Juror Arganbright was excused upon her professed inability to continue as a juror and she also indicated that two other jurors had indicated that they felt defendant was guilty and had expressed bad feelings about them, although her account was somewhat vague and confusing as to exactly what was said and whether it predated jury selection. The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to obtain the other jurors’ names or take additional testimony from them. The trial court considered the content and seriousness of the alleged statements and properly determined that such vague statements did not expose defendant to an unfair trial. Moreover, after dismissing the juror, the court issued a curative instruction reminding the jurors that they were not to discuss the case until the close of evidence. (2-1).