M. Ilk v. State, DA 20-0384

Michael Ilk was convicted of two counts of Attempted Deliberate Homicide and two counts of Aggravated Assault for firing multiple shots into a vehicle occupied by his former girlfriend and her companion; he claimed self-defense at trial.
During voir dire defense counsel Sean Hinchey asked about experience with abuse; juror James Brown said his wife had been severely abused and stated he was "very prejudiced against people that abuse other people" and that such abusers "should be took out and shot," adding he "wouldn't have any problem pulling the trigger."
Hinchey did not challenge Brown for cause or use a peremptory to remove him; Hinchey used all peremptories but left Brown on the panel, explaining later that Brown was a gun owner comfortable with firearms and likely sympathetic to a justifiable-use-of-force defense.
Ilk petitioned for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to remove or further probe Brown; the District Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, applying Strickland and Montana precedent, concluding counsel’s choice was a reasonable strategic decision and Brown’s statements reflected bias against the crime (abuse) not a fixed bias against Ilk, so Ilk failed to show deficient performance or prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to remove or further question Juror Brown after biased statements	Ilk: Hinchey should have struck or challenged Brown for cause after Brown expressed strong prejudice against abusers	State/Hinchey: Counsel made a reasoned strategic choice to keep Brown because he appeared comfortable with guns and likely receptive to self-defense theory	Court: Affirmed denial—counsel's performance fell within reasonable professional assistance; no deficient performance shown
Whether Brown's voir dire statements required disqualification for cause	Ilk: Brown's statements showed actual prejudice that he could not set aside	State: Brown voiced prejudice against the crime (abuse) but affirmed he could be fair; that does not require disqualification	Court: Brown was biased against the crime, not the defendant; record showed ability to be fair, so disqualification for cause not required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (2008) (counsel duty to ensure impartial jury and presumption of reasonable strategic decisions)
State v. Normandy, 347 Mont. 505 (2008) (juror biased against the crime, but who can be fair, need not be disqualified)
State v. Golie, 332 Mont. 69 (2006) (juror with fixed opinions from personal experience requires disqualification)
State v. Pelletier, 401 Mont. 454 (2020) (reiterates Strickland standard for Montana courts)