Rhoden v. State, 303 Ga. 482

In October 2010 Emmanuel Opoku-Afari was shot and killed; Tefflon Rhoden was indicted alongside co-defendants Tariq Smith and Anthony Norris and tried jointly with Smith.
At trial the State's theory was that Smith planned a robbery and enlisted Norris and Rhoden; Rhoden shot the victim during the attempted robbery and was convicted of malice murder and related gun offenses.
Rhoden was sentenced to life for malice murder plus consecutive terms for firearm offenses; his trial counsel later died and a motion for new trial (as amended) was denied.
On appeal Rhoden raised a Strickland ineffective-assistance claim alleging two failures by trial counsel: (1) not moving for a mistrial after a prosecutor’s remark about wanting "black males on the jury," and (2) not moving to sever his trial from Smith to call Smith as an exculpatory witness.
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed whether counsel’s performance was deficient and, if so, whether prejudice resulted under Strickland v. Washington.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rhoden)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Failure to move for mistrial based on prosecutor remark	Prosecutor admitted race/gender-based selection by saying he "want[ed] black males on the jury"; counsel should have moved for mistrial under Batson/J.E.B.	No peremptory strike was shown to be exercised discriminatorily; no precedent extends Batson to a prosecutor's decision not to strike a veniremember; counsel could reasonably decline a Batson motion and even asked that juror remain	Counsel not deficient; no Batson/J.E.B. violation shown; claim fails without prejudice analysis
Failure to move for severance to call co-defendant Smith	Counsel should have sought severance so Smith could testify at a separate trial that Rhoden was not a passenger in the truck	Rhoden presented no proof Smith would in fact testify at a severed trial; co-defendant may invoke Fifth Amendment; defendant must show co-defendant would testify	Counsel not deficient; Rhoden failed to show Smith would have testified or that prejudice resulted

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency of evidence standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance framework)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (peremptory strikes unconstitutional if race-based)
J. E. B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (peremptory strikes unconstitutional if gender-based)
Daniels v. State, 302 Ga. 90 (Ga. discussion of Strickland standards)
Capps v. State, 300 Ga. 6 (presumption counsel’s performance reasonable)
Downey v. State, 298 Ga. 568 (requirement to show a Batson challenge would have succeeded)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (Batson-related remedy doctrine)
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (Batson and prosecutor motive issues)
Smith v. State, 298 Ga. 357 (companion appeal summarizing trial evidence)