Opinion ID: 4556341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ineffective Voir Dire

Text: {¶ 79} In part one of his sixth proposition of law, Kirkland recasts his jurorbias claim regarding prospective juror No. 36, who ended up seated on the jury, as an ineffective-assistance claim. According to Kirkland, his counsel should have “question[ed prospective juror No. 36] specifically on [her] views on the death penalty” and should have “remov[ed her] from the pool” (i.e., challenged her for cause). {¶ 80} There are two problems with this argument. First, as Kirkland concedes, to show prejudice, he must show that the juror was actually biased against him. State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007-Ohio-4836, 873 N.E.2d 828, ¶ 67. Here, the record does not show that the juror was actually biased, since she 20 January Term, 2020 contradicted her questionnaire answers on voir dire. Second, there is no way to know what prospective juror No. 36 would have said if trial counsel had questioned her in greater depth. It would be speculative to assume that more or different questions would have exposed bias. {¶ 81} At oral argument, Kirkland cited our recent decision in State v. Bates, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-634, 149 N.E.3d 475, in which we reversed a capital conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel. In Bates, we determined that defense counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to challenge, or even question, a seated juror who had expressed racial bias on her questionnaire. But this case is easily distinguishable from Bates. Unlike Kirkland’s counsel, defense counsel in Bates asked no questions of the juror relating to the biased answer on her questionnaire. Id. at ¶ 29, 31-32. And as a result, the juror in Bates—unlike prospective juror No. 36—said nothing on voir dire to counteract the biased statement on the questionnaire. Id. at ¶ 36. {¶ 82} In this case, we can find neither deficient performance by counsel nor a reasonable probability that the result would have been different but for counsel’s alleged errors. Accordingly, we reject Kirkland’s claim of ineffective assistance with respect to prospective juror No. 36.