Opinion ID: 2454387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Pamphlet

Text: The circuit court routinely mails to potential jurors an informational pamphlet produced by the Missouri Bar. Storey argues the court plainly erred by distributing the pamphlet, and that trial counsel was ineffective by not objecting to it. Storey equates the pamphlet with jury instructions, arguing that these two pamphlet instructions misstate the law: 1. You should remember that statements of the lawyers are not evidence, but only explanations of what each side claims, and that claims must be proved by evidence. 2. ... whereas in a criminal case the verdict must be unanimous. A jury instruction is a direction given by the judge to the jury concerning the law of the case. Black's Law Dictionary 856 (6th ed. 1990). The informational pamphlet is not a jury instruction. Jurors are presumed to follow actual instructionsthose received from a judge in court. See Zafiro v. United States,  U.S.,, 113 S.Ct. 933, 939, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Moreover, Storey has failed to produce any evidence of prejudice, relying on a presumption of prejudice when a non-MAI instruction is used. In fact, there is no such presumption; rather, [t]he giving or failure to give an [non-MAI] instruction or verdict form ... shall constitute error, its prejudicial effect to be judicially determined. Rule 28.02(f). On this record, there is neither plain error nor prejudice. Finally, in the absence of any showing of prejudice, Storey cannot prevail on the ineffective-assistance claim. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494, 524 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied,  U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 757, 130 L.Ed.2d 656 (1995).