juror had not presented a statutorily sound reason to remove him from the jury at that juncture (which could have placed him in the situation of favoring the retention of a juror having an apparent animus to Lamon’s position if the punishment were to be decided by the jury) or he could say nothing and allow the trial court to dismiss a juror when there was no replacement available. Lamon, in his response, invited the court to remove the juror, and he did not seem to entertain any other alternative. 3 . “A trial begins when the jury is sworn.” McClellan v. State, 143 S.W.3d 395, 399-400 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, no pet.); see Maten v. State, 962 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex.App.-Hous ton [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); see also Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Article 36.29 tracks the language of
holding that jurisdiction attaches when a complaint is filed and process subsequently issues in due course holding that jeopardy attaches in juvenile adjudication that determines whether juvenile violated criminal law holding jeopardy attaches when the guilty plea is accepted holding that conviction did not violate double jeopardy where jury was empaneled and sworn in criminal trial before defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint holding jeopardy attaches when jury is empanelled and sworn