basis of intangible factors in Ohio

2026There are, in fact, "'[f]ew decisions at trial [that] are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.'" State v. Mundt, 2007-Ohio-4836 , ¶ 64, quoting Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir.2001). - 11 - Clermont CA2025-09-073 {¶ 28} That said, as at least one other court has emphasized, "[w]e are constrained to express our concern about intemperate remarks by members of the trial bench in connection with voir dire examination." Summers v. State, 725 P.2d 1033, 1040 (Wyo. 1986).

2025To prove prejudice, the defendant must show that the attorney’s errors “were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. {¶7} In describing ineffective-assistance claims that focus on the jury-selection process, the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that “‘[f]ew decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.’” State v. Mundt, 2007-Ohio-4836 , ¶ 64, quoting Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir. 2001).

2025According to Boyd, her counsel failed to ask questions aimed at eliciting valuable information. {¶38} The Supreme Court “has long ‘recognized that counsel is in the best position to determine whether any potential juror should be questioned and to what extent.’” State v. Worley, 2021-Ohio-2207, ¶ 96 , quoting State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 539 (2001). “‘Few decisions 13 at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.’” State v. Mundt, 2007-Ohio-4836 , ¶ 64, quoting Miller v. Francis,

2022“Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.” Id. at ¶ 64, citing Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir., 2001). “[C]ounsel is in the best position to determine whether any potential juror should be questioned and to what extent.” Id., citing State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 539 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001). {¶ 40} Our review of the record, including juror number 12’s responses during the initial voir dire and her responses to questions in chambers, reveals no evid

2009See, also, State v. Group , 98 Ohio St.3d 248 , 2002-Ohio-7247 , _139; State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 539 , 2001-Ohio-112 ; Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d at 143 -144 . {¶ 67} "`Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.' Miller v. Francis (C.A.6, 2001), 269 F.3d 609 , 620 . `The selection of a jury is inevitably a call upon experience and intuition.

2009See, also, State v. Group , 98 Ohio St.3d 248 , 2002-Ohio-7247 , _139; State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 539 , 2001-Ohio-112 ; Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d at 143 -144 . {¶ 67} "`Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.' Miller v. Francis (C.A.6, 2001), 269 F.3d 609 , 620 . `The selection of a jury is inevitably a call upon experience and intuition.

2022State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2014-Ohio-4751, ¶ 225 . "'Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.'" State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2007-Ohio-4836 , ¶ 64, quoting Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir.2001). "'[T]he selection process is more an art than a science, and more about people than about rules.'" Id. quoting Romero v. Lynaugh, 884 F.2d 871, 878 (5th Cir.1989).

2022Juror 88 indicated that the prosecutor had handled a civil case for her and that she was good friends with defense counsel’s wife. {¶ 72} “Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.” State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2007-Ohio-4836 , 873 N.E.2d 828, ¶ 64 , quoting Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir.2001).

2019Although Jones 10 takes exception to the trial court’s finding that his trial counsel had the benefit of information and opinions from two psychologists prior to jury selection, even assuming without deciding that the record does not support that finding, such a conclusion would not be determinative in this case. {¶19} The Supreme Court of Ohio has “consistently declined to ‘second-guess trial strategy decisions’ or impose ‘hindsight views about how current counsel might have voir dired the jury differently.’” State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2007-Ohio-4836 , ¶ 63, quoting State v. Mason, 8

2014Failure to rehabilitate prospective jurors {¶ 227} Neyland asserts that trial counsel were ineffective by failing to ask follow-up questions of prospective jurors Nos. 81, 87, and 91, who indicated that they could not impose the death penalty. {¶ 228} We have consistently declined to “second-guess trial strategy decisions” or impose “hindsight views about how current counsel might have voir dired the jury differently.” State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 157 , 694 N.E.2d 932 (1998). “ ‘Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where de

2009See, also, State v. Group , 98 Ohio St.3d 248 , 2002-Ohio-7247 , _139; State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St.3d 516 , 539 , 2001-Ohio-112 ; Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d at 143 -144 . {¶ 67} "`Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.' Miller v. Francis (C.A.6, 2001), 269 F.3d 609 , 620 . `The selection of a jury is inevitably a call upon experience and intuition.

2007See also State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 , 2002-Ohio-7247 , 781 N.E.2d 980 , ¶ 139; State v. Murphy (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 539 , 747 N.E.2d 765 ; Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 143-144 , 538 N.E.2d 373 . {¶ 64} “Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.” Miller v. Francis (C.A.6, 2001), 269 F.3d 609, 620 .

2026There are, in fact, "'[f]ew decisions at trial [that] are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.'" State v. Mundt, 2007-Ohio-4836 , ¶ 64, quoting Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir.2001). - 11 - Clermont CA2025-09-073 {¶ 28} That said, as at least one other court has emphasized, "[w]e are constrained to express our concern about intemperate remarks by members of the trial bench in connection with voir dire examination." Summers v. State, 725 P.2d 1033, 1040 (Wyo. 1986).

2024This -6- Warren CA2023-08-063 holds true even though, as noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, "'[f]ew decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.'" Mundt, 2007-Ohio-4836 at ¶ 64, quoting Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir.2001). {¶ 15} "'[T]he decision whether to seat a biased juror cannot be a discretionary or strategic decision.'" State v. Froman, 162 Ohio St.3d 435 , 2020-Ohio-4523, ¶ 49 , quoting Miller v. Webb, 385 F.3d 666, 675 (6th Cir.2004).

2024"If counsel's decision not to challenge a biased venireperson could constitute sound trial strategy, then sound trial strategy would include counsel's decision to waive, in effect, a criminal defendant's right to an impartial jury." Hughes, 258 F.3d at 463 , citing United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 , 120 S. Ct. 774 (2000) (holding that the seating of a biased juror who should have been dismissed for cause requires reversal of the conviction). "[T]here is no sound trial strategy that could support what is essentially a waiver of a defendant's basic Sixth Amendment right to tr

2022State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254 , 2014-Ohio-4751, ¶ 225 . "'Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.'" State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2007-Ohio-4836 , ¶ 64, quoting Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 620 (6th Cir.2001). "'[T]he selection process is more an art than a science, and more about people than about rules.'" Id. quoting Romero v. Lynaugh, 884 F.2d 871, 878 (5th Cir.1989).

2010As a result, “counsel is in the best position to determine whether any potential juror should be questioned and to what extent.” Murphy at 539, 747 N.E.2d 765 ; see also Bradley at 143, 538 N.E.2d 373 . {¶ 84} Furthermore, posing only a few questions, or even no questions at all, to a prospective juror could potentially be the most advantageous tactic for defense counsel in some situations. “ ‘[Questioning by other parties may convince counsel that the juror would be favorable for the defense, and that further questions might only antagonize the juror or give the prosecution a reason to use a

2010As a result, “counsel is in the best position to determine whether any potential juror should be questioned and to what extent.” Murphy at 539, 747 N.E.2d 765 ; see also Bradley at 143, 538 N.E.2d 373 . {¶ 84} Furthermore, posing only a few questions, or even no questions at all, to a prospective juror could potentially be the most advantageous tactic for defense counsel in some situations. “ ‘[Questioning by other parties may convince counsel that the juror would be favorable for the defense, and that further questions might only antagonize the juror or give the prosecution a reason to use a