Court Opinion

ID: 9772852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:31:30.325699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:48.854002
License: Public Domain

PREWITT, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion does a thorough and admirable job of analyzing the authorities and the problems in a case such as this, but I disagree with the conclusion reached.
Certainly movant’s counsel erred. If a challenge for cause had been made it would have been error not to have excused venireman Cates. However, I believe movant has failed to meet the applicable burden for relief established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
I agree that as indicated in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. at 2067, there are situations where prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel can be “presumed”. Counsel’s error resulted in a juror serving who said he was a “little partial” against movant. That should not be enough for a presumption of prejudice entitling movant to a new trial where, as here, counsel was otherwise effective and in my view movant received a fair trial although, as is always the case, not a perfect one.
I would reverse because movant failed to satisfy the standard in Strickland for him to show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. There is no basis to believe that the presence of juror Cates probably affected the outcome. On the evidence here it is highly unlikely that counsel’s error changed the result.