Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voir Dire and Peremptory Challenges

Text: Defense counsel exercised peremptory challenges to 21 members of the venire. As to five of the challenged prospective jurors, defendant faults counsel for passing those jurors for cause with little or no questioning. Defendant points out that thereafter the prosecutor elicited information from those jurors that led defense counsel to peremptorily challenge them. As to three of the challenged jurors, defendant asserts that their responses to questions asked in voir dire indicated attitudes that would have made them desirable from a defense point of view, and whose peremptory dismissals are without any conceivable tactical basis. Defendant has failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. The legal principles governing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel have been set forth earlier. ( Ante, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d at pp. 502-503, 6 P.3d at pp. 165-166.) Briefly, to establish such a claim a defendant must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and resulted in prejudice. If the defendant fails to show prejudice, a reviewing court may reject the claim without determining the sufficiency of counsel's performance. ( People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 366, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169.) Defendant has failed to establish prejudice insofar as his claim is based on the possibility that further questioning during voir dire by defense counsel might have disclosed bias in the individuals ultimately selected as jurors. But mere speculation that additional questioning might have disclosed a ground for challenge is insufficient to establish ineffective representation. ( People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 368, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169.) To the extent defendant's claim is based on the voir dire of the eight jurors who were peremptorily challenged by defense counsel, he has failed to show deficient performance. Because the use of peremptory challenges is inherently subjective and intuitive, an appellate record will rarely disclose reversible incompetence in this process. ( People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 911, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277.) The record here does not support defendant's claim that counsel's exercise of the peremptory challenges showed ineffective representation. With regard to counsel's peremptory challenges to five of the prospective jurors, defendant does not contend his counsel lacked sufficient grounds for the challenges. With respect to defendant's argument that three of the peremptorily challenged jurors would have been favorable to the defense, there were ample grounds for the challenges, because each expressed strong support for the death penalty in response to questions asked in voir dire.