Court Opinion

ID: 9782791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:16:31.087883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:12.093561
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KARMEIER, specially concurring: Because I agree with the majority’s determination that defendant has failed to demonstrate deficient performance of counsel during voir dire, I find the majority’s discussion of prejudice unnecessary and therefore I see no need to take a position for or against the views expressed in that discussion. Only if the majority had determined counsel’s performance was deficient, resulting in the seating of a biased juror, would it be necessary to reconcile Metcalfe’s application of the prejudice prong of Strickland with precedents of this court, and the United States Supreme Court, suggesting that the service of one biased juror on the jury would be plain, structural error warranting automatic reversal.