Opinion ID: 1628268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Post-Trial Interview of Jurors

Text: Mr. Strong claims that the motion court erred in refusing to allow him to contact jurors following the trial to investigate and prove claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and juror misconduct. Post-conviction counsel filed a motion to contact petit jurors prior to the filing of an amended motion for relief. Mr. Strong states that such refusal is especially unfair because the motion court faulted him for failing to present the testimony of jurors in support of his post-conviction claim of prejudice resulting from the claimed ineffectiveness of counsel. [2] In the court where Mr. Strong was tried, a local court rule prohibits an attorney or a party from contacting petit jurors without court permission. St. Louis County Local Rule 53.3. Pursuant to this rule, Mr. Strong sought permission from the court to contact the jurors, on the grounds that he anticipated raising two ineffective assistance of counsel claimsfirst, for counsel's failure to question the panel during voir dire regarding their ability to remain fair and impartial after viewing gruesome photographs and, second, concerning the record made by trial counsel regarding the peremptory strikes used by the prosecution against Sylvia Stevenson and Luke Bobo. Post-conviction relief counsel also stated that after further review of the record he might identify additional claims. The motion court overruled the motion, stating that it would reconsider upon a showing of reasonable cause to believe, from actual factual allegations, that defendant's rights had been violated. Mr. Strong has no inherent right to contact and interview jurors. Courts have discretionary power to grant permission for contact with jurors after a trial. State v. Jones, 979 S.W.2d 171, 183 (Mo. banc 1998). Additionally, his use of any information obtained from the jurors is limited, in that Missouri courts exclude juror testimony from consideration on post-judgment matters: The rule is perfectly settled, that jurors speak through their verdict, and they cannot be allowed to violate the secrets of the jury room, and tell of any partiality or misconduct that transpired there, nor speak of the motives which induced or operated to produce the verdict. State v. Babb, 680 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Mo. banc 1984). A post-conviction relief movant may not use the testimony of a juror to prove prejudice from his attorney's alleged incompetence because this would be permitting the juror to impeach the verdict, which is impermissible. Franklin v. State, 156 S.W.3d 507 (Mo.App.2005). Although the rule prohibiting impeachment of a verdict extends to juror conduct either inside or outside the jury room, [a] limited exception exists. It is permissible to elicit testimony about juror misconduct that occurred outside the jury room, such as the gathering of extrinsic evidence.... Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116, 130 (Mo. banc 2005) (internal citations omitted). While Mr. Strong makes a general allegation of juror misconduct, he fails to articulate any basis for suspecting juror misconduct. There is no support for this contention, and this appears to be a pretextual argument in an attempt to gain access to the jury's thought processes, an act that is strictly prohibited. Even if Mr. Strong were to speak to former juror members, the information gathered would merely provide information as to the opinions of the jurors' regarding specific evidence. There is no indication how this information would relate to the peremptory strikes used against Ms. Stevenson or Mr. Bobo. Instead, the jurors' opinions would merely provide insight into their responses to the strategic decisions made by trial counsel. There was evidence at the motion hearing that counsel acted professionally in making decisions and that any challenged action was a part of counsel's sound trial strategy. [3] Counsel asked various detailed questions during voir dire, and all venire members were aware that the case involved stabbings and a young child. Defense counsel testified that he had never asked questions relating to photographs and mitigation during voir dire in other trials and that he believed that one could insult the intelligence of the venire members by suggesting the photographs alone would prevent them from considering the evidence. Counsel also stated that he had never shown such photographs in voir dire as he did not desire to overemphasize the gruesome nature of the crimes or alienate the jurors by focusing on the nature of the offense. Trial counsel provided a reasonable explanation for his decisions and trial strategy. His performance complies with the degree of skill, care, and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney as is required to avoid a finding of ineffective assistance. Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Mo. banc 2007) (quoting Hall, 982 S.W.2d at 680). The motion court did not clearly err in denying counsel the opportunity to question jurors.