arguing that the majority should not have addressed the continued viability of this court's holding in People v. Metcalfe, 202 Ill.2d 544, 270 Ill.Dec. 69, 782 N.E.2d 263 (2002)a principal issue raised in defendant's petition for leave to appealbecause it was not necessary to do so
How later courts described this case
- arguing that the majority should not have addressed the continued viability of this court's holding in People v. Metcalfe, 202 Ill.2d 544, 270 Ill.Dec. 69, 782 N.E.2d 263 (2002)a principal issue raised in defendant's petition for leave to appealbecause it was not necessary to do so
- “Considering the entire voir dire *** in context, it is possible that [the] defendant’s trial counsel decided that [the juror] was not unequivocally biased.”
- “Considering the entire voir dire of [the potential juror] in context, it is possible that defendant’s trial counsel decided that [the juror] was not unequivocally biased.”
- stating under the second Strickland prong, a defendant must prove counsel’s deficient performance rendered the result of the trial unreliable or fundamentally unfair
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.