Opinion ID: 2069959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Venire Panel Members' Conversation with Police Officer

Text: Johnson next contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the trial court dismiss the venire panel when three potential jurors had an impermissible conversation with Lieutenant Dunn, the investigating police officer. During voir dire, Lieutenant Dunn described the conversation as follows: Lieutenant Dunn: I was talking with Children and Youth, one of their investigators from the case I'm working, and she asked me how the jury selection was going. I said, it's slow. And she said, how's Mr. Johnson. I said, he's cleaned up his act. And one of the jurors said, oh, did we have to buy that suit? And I turned around, and there she was standing. She said, he looks nice in that suit, I guess we have to pay for it. And there was an older gentleman standing there. She said to me, are you an attorney? And he said, no, he's the Chief of Police from Exeter. So that's what was said. The Court: Well, where did this occur? Lieutenant Dunn: In the smokeat the back of the building where they smoke, where people stand outside and smoke, in that little doorway. The Court: In the services center? Lieutenant Dunn: Yes, the Services Center. I believe they weren't picked yet. The Court: All right. There were two then? Lieutenant Dunn: Two females and a male. The Court: Two females and a male. Three people. Lieutenant Dunn: I said to them, don't talk to me. And the other female said, well, these people would do anything to get off the jury, something to that effect. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Voir Dire, 11/13/97, pages 300-301. The trial court identified the two female jurors and questioned them on the Record; both indicated that they had not told anyone else about the conversation. N.T. Voir Dire, 11/13/97, pages 420-429. The court excused both potential jurors from the venire panel. Lieutenant Dunn was never able to identify the male whom he had observed, though both females thought that he may have been a venire person. Johnson makes allegations that this male may have spoken with other jurors about the conversation; however, the PCRA court correctly notes that he has given no indication other than the wildest speculation that this unknown man may have somehow tainted the jury. Opinion of the PCRA Court, February 23, 2001, page 18. Clearly this conjecture does not establish any prejudice suffered by Johnson. Absent a demonstration of prejudice, [a PCRA petitioner] cannot prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel and no further inquiry into the claim is warranted. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 567 Pa. 186, 786 A.2d 203, 221 (2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 561 Pa. 266, 750 A.2d 261 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1035, 121 S.Ct. 623, 148 L.Ed.2d 533 (2000)).