☢ test - Í

ineffective assistance shown where defendant claims counsel failed to take action after being notified that a juror was seen conversing with victim during trial. “At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Scott's sister testified that she saw Patterson and a juror in a ‘friendly conversation,’ but testified that the only words she heard were the juror's statement to Patterson, ‘I'll talk to you later.’ Scott produced no other evidence concerning the conversation. This statement, without more, fails the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. Because Patterson failed to show that the allegedly improper communication prejudiced him, the trial court did not clearly err in finding Scott received effective assistance of counsel.” Accord, Jones (April 18, 2011), above. 63. JURY OATHS Hargett v. State, 285 Ga. 82, 674 S.E.2d 261 (January 26, 2009). Deficient performance but no ineffective assistance from failure to object to incorrect voir dire oath. “[D]efense counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to the improper oath. [fn] However, appellants must show that they were prejudiced by the trial court's failure to give the proper voir dire oath. [fn: Contrary to [defendants'] argument, the voir dire oath is not on the same standing as the juror oath. Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652, n. 2 (278 S.E.2d 386) (1981). Moreover, while a criminal defendant may not waive the trial court's complete failure to administer the juror oath, when a juror oath is given that deviates from the one statutorily prescribed, the error in the oath is waived by a defendant's failure to object. Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595(3) (571 S.E.2d 361) (2002) .] See Stockford v. State, 276 Ga. 241(4) (575 S.E.2d 889) (2003) (defendant asserting ineffectiveness must show prejudice from trial counsel's failure to object to deviation in juror oath). See also Gober v. State, 247 Ga. 652(2) (278 S.E.2d 386) (1981) (harm not presumed from failure to administer voir dire oath). Our review of the record establishes that [defendants] made no such showing. See generally id. (nothing in record showed that [defendant] prejudiced by any false answer given during voir dire); see also Gainesville Radiology Group v. Hummel, 263 Ga. 91, 94 (428 S.E.2d 786) (1993) (even where defendant proves that sworn juror answered untruthfully, reversal is not warranted unless defendant can also prove a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause). [Defendants] thus failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” 64. JURY POLLING, see subheading POLLING JURY, below 65. JURY SELECTION Ford v. State, 298 Ga. 560, 783 S.E.2d 906 (March 7, 2016). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in counsel’s choice of voir dire questions. “Appellant contends counsel was ineffective for failing to ask certain jurors follow-up questions about bias during voir dire. The conduct of voir dire ‘can be a matter of trial strategy’ and does not necessarily establish ineffective assistance. Morgan v. State, 276 Ga. 72(9), 575 S.E.2d 468 (2003). In this case, appellant has failed to show any deficiency or prejudice.” Goodrum v. State, 335 Ga.App. 831, 783 S.E.2d 354 (February 25, 2016). Aggravated assault conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance in voir dire questioning of potential jurors. Defense “counsel asked a potential juror for detailed information about a prior experience with domestic violence.” The trial court disallowed the questioning for fear it would taint the jury panel. “But counsel’s decision regarding how to question potential jurors was clearly a matter of trial strategy. And matters of reasonable trial strategy ‘do not equate with ineffective assistance of counsel.’ [Cit.] Moreover, even if counsel’s methods were not reasonable, Goodrum has offered no evidence that those methods actually impacted the trial or prejudiced him in any way.” Simpson v. State, 298 Ga. 314, 781 S.E.2d 762 (January 19, 2016). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to save a strike for a sheriff’s employee from another county, who wasn’t subject to strike for cause. “‘Which, and how many, prospective jurors to strike is a quintessential strategic decision.’ Shields v. State, 307 Ga.App. 830, 832(1)(a), 706 S.E.2d 187 (2011). … Simpson’s trial lawyer admitted that he had valid reasons for the nine strikes that he did make. We cannot say under the circumstances of this case that no competent attorney would have struck the jury as this lawyer did. See Barmore v. State, 323 Ga.App. 377, 381(2), 746 S.E.2d 289 (2013). Consequently, Simpson has not demonstrated deficient performance with respect to the selection of a jury.” Accord, Welch v. State , 298 Ga. 320, 781 S.E.2d 768 (January 19, 2016). Hendrix v. State, 298 Ga. 60, 779 S.E.2d 322 (November 2, 2015). Murder and related convictions affirmed. No ineffective assistance where counsel didn’t ensure that the trial court asked the mandatory juror qualification questions required by OCGA § 15-12-164(a), given that “trial counsel’s own questions to the jury venire adequately covered the principles that the two omitted questions were intended to address. Accordingly, Hendrix can establish no prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s omission of the latter two statutory voir dire questions.”