hears and sees the prospective juror and has the unique ability to make an assessment of the individual’s candor and the probable certainty of his answers to critical questions presented to him.” Williams, 465 So.2d at 1231. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not commit manifest error in determining that prospective juror Thies was competent to serve as a juror. See Williams, 465 So.2d at 1231. Viewing the voir dire questions and answers in their entirety, we conclude that Thies’ statements “reveal[] nothing more than an inclination toward law enforcement work and.upholding of the law.” See Skipper v. State, 400 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev’d on other grounds, 420 So.2d 877 (Fla.1982); see also Peri v. State, 412 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(<HOLDING>). The trial judge, who observed and evaluated
holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony holding that the applicant had not demonstrated the government was unable or unwilling to control the perpetrators where he contended that the police failed to investigate his reports but admitted that he did not give the police the names of any suspects because he did not know any specific names and his wife testified that the police investigated the complaints but were ultimately unable to solve the crimes holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing a cause challenge against a prospective juror who indicated that he would give police testimony a little more credence and that his acquaintanceship with police officers would have a little effect but who ultimately stated that he would keep an open mind and follow the instructions of law given by the court holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to ask whether prospective jurors would place a greater amount of weight upon the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of the defendants