In People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619 involved allegations of criminal assault, after the jury had been sworn, opening arguments made, and pre-instructions given, a juror informed the court that his son had been arrested and charged with a felony assault. (Id. at p. 658.) The court "interrupted the juror's explanation of the incident, and questioned him on his ability to be fair. The juror expressed his belief that he could continue to be so and remained on the jury after the court expressly found that he could continue to serve as a juror as he had indicated his ability to follow instructions and decide the case based upon the evidence and that he could be fair to both sides." (Ibid.) The appellate court noted, much as we do here, that the juror "had informed the court of the incident immediately, and nothing in his responses to the court's inquiries suggested that he would be biased against defendant and could not perform his duty. His tone and demeanor apparently satisfied . . . the judge." (Id. at p. 659.) The California Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for rape without forensic testimony, the victim's testimony, or any other eyewitness testimony. The defendant in Holt was convicted of raping and murdering the victim. (Id. at pp. 638-639.) Semen was found on the victim's clothing, but a laboratory analysis found no traumatic evidence of penetration and no semen in the victim's vagina or anus. (Id. at p. 668.) An emergency room physician who examined the victim testified he observed her vaginal area was red, which could be consistent with either infection or bruising and penetration by an adult penis. (Ibid.) The physician found no other evidence of infection. (Ibid.) The defendant contended this evidence did not support the element of sexual penetration. (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court concluded otherwise, stating: "That the evidence might lead to a different verdict does not warrant a conclusion that the evidence supporting the verdict is insubstantial. The evidence of penetration in this case was circumstantial--redness in the vaginal area, the absence of evidence of an infection that might account for it, and expert testimony that the redness was consistent with penetration. Other circumstantial evidence . . . could support an inference that the redness had a different cause." (Holt, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 669.) The court explained that when a trier of fact relies on inferences, the inference must be reasonable, and an inference is not reasonable if it is based on speculation. (Ibid.) The inference apparently drawn by the jury--that defendant accomplished sexual penetration--was reasonable because it was based on evidence that the redness in the victim's vagina was consistent with penetration by an adult male penis and the defendant's admission he sexually assaulted the victim. (Ibid.)