When does failure to question potentially biased jurors constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? State v. King Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. King addressed when trial counsel’s oversight during jury selection rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, establishing important guidance for appellate practitioners handling jury-related ineffective assistance claims.

Background and Facts

During jury selection in King’s sexual abuse trial, the court asked prospective jurors to indicate if they would be unable to be fair and impartial. Five jurors responded affirmatively. The court then asked if any other prospective jurors had been victims of abuse or had family members who were victims. Six additional jurors raised their hands. The trial judge intended to individually question all eleven prospective jurors but through oversight only questioned nine, allowing two potentially biased jurors to serve on the jury that convicted King. Trial counsel failed to notice this omission.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether counsel’s failure to ensure all potentially biased jurors were questioned constituted deficient performance under the Strickland standard, and whether prejudice should be presumed rather than requiring proof of actual bias.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found counsel’s performance deficient, explaining that while retaining a potentially biased juror might sometimes constitute sound trial strategy, such retention requires “at minimum, that counsel make further inquiry into the potential bias.” Here, counsel failed to reasonably participate in the selection process by not noticing the oversight. The court emphasized that trial courts rely heavily on counsel to raise objections during jury selection to ensure an impartial jury.

Regarding prejudice, the court presumed rather than required proof of actual prejudice, noting this was appropriate where prejudice is “so likely that case-by-case inquiry into prejudice is not worth the cost” and where “it is difficult to measure the precise effect” of counsel’s error.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores counsel’s affirmative duty to actively monitor voir dire proceedings. Courts depend on counsel’s vigilance to detect potential bias, making oversight during jury selection particularly problematic. For appellate practitioners, King provides a framework for challenging convictions where counsel failed to adequately participate in jury selection, particularly when potentially biased jurors serve without proper questioning.