Supreme Court of Georgia Finds No Ineffective Assistance in Defense Counsel Failing to Ask For Further Inquiry Into Juror Who Expressed Fear That Guilty Verdict Would Lead to Retaliation

To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must prove that he received deficient performance and that this deficient performance prejudiced him, i.e., that there's a reasonable probability he would not have been convicted if he received reasonable performance. It's really difficult for a defendant to win on such a claim, but I feel like the defendant made a pretty good case in Sims v. State, 2025 WL 1507422 (Ga. 2025).

In Sims, "Colton Jerrod Sims and Monte Glover were convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of DeCoby Barlow and the contemporaneous aggravated assault of Landon Brown."

After over a week of trial, Juror 9 sent a letter to the Court, tendered into evidence as C-3.40 In the letter, the juror expressed concern for her safety “given the violent nature of the charges.” Specifically, “I know this trial is still going on and personally I still have not formed any opinions or made any conclusions on the outcome of this case, I know the verdict will not be favorable for person(s) involved. And again I do not want to be at risk of retaliation from anyone, given the violent nature of the charges.” The State requested to voir dire her to get more information as to whether it would impact her verdict. The Court declined to allow voir dire. All three defense counsel did not see Juror 9's concerns as a reason for excusal.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia addressed Sims's ineffective assistance of counsel claim as follows:

Sims also argues that trial counsel should have moved to excuse the juror who expressed concern for her and her family's safety, or, at a minimum, requested further inquiry into that juror's letter to the court. “[J]uror selection is a matter of trial tactics and strategy,” and “a decision implicating trial tactics and strategy can serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim only if it is so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have made such a decision.”...At the motion for new trial hearing, counsel testified that he did not think the alternate jurors would be favorable to the defense and that he was “more afraid of the alternate” than he was of the juror at issue here. Counsel also noted that, despite her safety concerns, the juror indicated that she could remain impartial and, for that reason, he did not think a motion to excuse her from service would succeed. Though counsel expressed some regret at the motion for new trial hearing for his decision not to pursue the matter further, “trial counsel's decisions relating to strategy and tactics are not judged by hindsight.”...Sims has not established that, under the facts of this case, counsel's assessment was so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have done the same, and his claim of ineffective assistance fails.

Here's what I don't get. Juror 9 stated that she had not formed any opinions or conclusions about the case, but then immediately thereafter stated that she knew the verdict would "not be favorable for the person(s) involved." Given the the victims were dead, it seems pretty clear that she was talking about Sims and Glover, which would imply that she did know she was going to vote guilty, given that a jury verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous.

To me, that at least implied that Juror 9's mind was made and that an alternate wouldn't have been any worse. Now, maybe that's wrong, but that's exactly why you ask for further inquiry into the juror's letter.

-CM