Opinion ID: 6109557
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Properly Voir Dire Juror Williams

Text: A defendant has a right to a fair and impartial jury. Knese v. State, 85 S.W.3d 628 , 632 (Mo. banc 2002), citing, U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV ; Mo. Const. art. 1, sec. 18(a). There is no rigid formula for an adequate voir dire, State v. Ousley, 419 S.W.3d 65 , 73 (Mo. banc 2013) , but [o]ne aspect of this right is adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors. Knese, 85 S.W.3d at 632 . In Mr. McFadden's second trial for Leslie's murder, the circuit court asked the venire panel, Does anyone think they recognize Mr. Vincent McFadden? No one, including Juror Williams, indicated they did. Mr. McFadden argues defense counsel were ineffective in not specifically asking Juror Williams additional questions about whether he recognized Mr. McFadden because Mr. McFadden indicated to defense counsel at some point during the voir dire that Juror Williams looked familiar. The only case cited in support by Mr. McFadden, Knese, is not applicable. Knese held defense counsel were ineffective for failing to read jury questionnaires from  which they would have learned two jurors' responses suggest-although not conclusively establishing-that they would automatically vote to impose death after a murder conviction. Id. at 633 . This Court held, At a minimum, counsel should have read the questionnaires, and voir dired to determine whether they could serve as jurors. Failure to do so is ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. The key difference here is defense counsel had no similar indication Juror Williams was on the prior venire panel based on Juror Williams' questionnaire or voir dire responses, or based on Mr. McFadden's assertion he thought Juror Williams looked familiar. As Mr. McFadden had no idea why Juror Williams looked familiar, once Juror Williams did not respond affirmatively to the court's question whether anyone recognized Mr. McFadden, defense counsel could have done no more than re-ask the same question the circuit court had already asked. No case suggests failing to repeat the court's voir dire questions to see if the response might have changed is error. Even if counsel were ineffective in failing to ask Juror Williams a specific follow-up question, their failure could not have been prejudicial. At the postconviction hearing, Juror Williams again, and repeatedly, testified he still simply did not remember Mr. McFadden. Defense counsel could not have created a memory when none existed. Although the Constitution guarantees the right to competent counsel, we cannot expect counsel to be omniscient or clairvoyant. Redus v. Swenson, 468 F.2d 606 , 607 (8th Cir. 1972). 5 The motion court did not clearly err in finding defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to act on inadequate information.