Opinion ID: 1821648
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ineffective assistance in allowing jury selection to take place during a recess.

Text: ¶ 20. Burns claims that his rights were violated when the jury in his trial was selected during a recess. He claims that his attorney was ineffective in allowing this to happen. The record reveals that challenges for cause were recorded. After ruling on the challenges for cause, the following discussion took place: THE COURT: All right. Let's get busy. Any additional challenges by the Defendant? MR. ELLIS: No, your honor. THE COURT: Let the record reflect that. Get us 14 jurors. At that point, there was a recess and then the jurors were seated. There is no mention in the record of peremptory challenges being used by either side. ¶ 21. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-3 (2000) provides that the State and the defense will have twelve peremptory challenges in capital cases. Burns cites Hollis v. State, 221 Miss. 677, 74 So.2d 747 (1954), where the Court stated in order to comply with the constitutional mandate of a public trial, peremptory challenges should be exercised at the bar, in open court. Id. at 681, 74 So.2d 747. ¶ 22. Burns now argues that the jury was selected during the recess. The record reveals that the jury was already selected when the court went into recess and that the entire selection process is on the record. From the record, it appears that the defense declined to challenge any jurors peremptorily or waived its right to use peremptory challenges against the remaining jurors. Burns claims only that his right to a public trial was violated and that there is no record of any possible Batson challenge. He makes no allegation that a Batson violation occurred or that any juror who actually served had any bias or prejudice against the defense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considers an attorney's actions during voir dire to be a matter of trial strategy, which cannot be the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless counsel's tactics are shown to be `so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.' Teague v. Scott, 60 F.3d 1167, 1172 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Garland v. Maggio, 717 F.2d 199, 206 (5th Cir.1983)). Federal courts have held that an attorney's failure to exercise peremptory challenges does not give rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel absent a showing that the defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to exercise the challenges. United States v. Taylor, 832 F.2d 1187 (10th Cir. 1987). See also Mattheson v. King, 751 F.2d 1432, 1438 (5th Cir.1985). We find that Burns has not shown that his attorneys were ineffective in the jury selection process.