CAUSAL CHALLENGES - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

In Treesh v. Bagley, 612 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2010) on appeal, civilian defendant in death penalty case argued defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging two jurors for cause. The first juror was a paralegal and had taken legal courses from the prosecutor. The second juror was in favor of the death penalty "[w]hen it's warranted" and had read three or four articles about the case in the local newspaper. The Sixth Circuit went directly to the prejudice prong of the Strickland test and found there was no prejudice. Neither member was actually biased against the defendant based on their answers during voir dire. Regarding implied bias, the court noted that civilian federal courts (contrary to military jurisprudence) have found implied bias in only extreme cases; for example, implied bias exists if the juror is a "close relative" of a trial participant, was a witness to the offense, or "somehow involved" in the offense. The Sixth Circuit further "expressed doubt over the continued viability of the doctrine of implied bias." However, assuming the doctrine continues to exist in civilian federal courts, the court concluded that a mere teacher-student relationship, a favorable view of the death penalty, and exposure to media coverage do not amount to implied bias. Therefore, in rejecting the IAC claim, the court found there was no prejudice in this case (which obviated the need to consider whether defense counsel's performance was deficient).