had resided in nursing homes); and Burroughs Corp., supra. We further note that the trial court’s alternate interpretation is supported by the sheer number of jurors who failed to respond. Given the phrasing of the voir dire questions posed by defense counsel, the absence of any demonstration of willfulness on the part of allegedly untruthful jurors, the lack of materiality of the alleged undisclosed matters, and the limited scope of our review, we are unable to hold that the trial court exceeded its discretion in concluding both that the cause of the failures to respond was misunderstanding of the questions posed and that no probable prejudice resulted. Simmons, 562 So.2d at 149. But see Conference America, Inc. v. Telecommunications Coop. Network, Inc., 885 So.2d 772, 777 (Ala.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we cannot agree that the trial
holding questions meant to expose jurors bias and tendencies permitted during voir dire holding that there was no indication that the questions on voir dire were ambiguous or that the jurors failure to respond was inadvertent and concluding that the nondisclosed matters were material holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judges discretion