Opinion ID: 1183195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Failure of Milligan's Counsel to Challenge Selected Jurors

Text: Milligan argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because of counsel's failure to challenge for cause three jurors who had rather strong opinions on the death penalty. Preferring an evidentiary hearing of the matter, we have traditionally refused to pass on questions of ineffective trial counsel on direct appeal except where counsel's actions are inconsistent with even a modicum of effective advocacy. See Mazzan v. State, 100 Nev. 74, 675 P.2d 409 (1984). The three jurors Milligan complains of indicated that they could be sympathetic to a claim of alcohol-induced diminished capacity, Milligan's only defense. Therefore a valid trial tactic might have been to include those veniremen as jurors. Without ruling out the possibility of a subsequent evidentiary hearing predicated on the appropriate motion, we decline to hold that Milligan's counsel was so ineffective as to rise to the level of that of Mazzan. C.