State v. Sessions, 342 P.3d 738

Ronnie Sessions was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and domestic violence in the presence of a child after an attack on his wife witnessed by their four-year-old daughter.
During voir dire, Sessions used all five peremptory challenges on female jurors; the State objected to discrimination but Sessions’ counsel gave nondiscriminatory explanations for only some strikes.
The trial court reinstated two jurors (19 and 23) after Batson-based concerns but did not restore the two peremptory challenges Sessions had used to strike them.
On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, holding Sessions failed to prove prejudice from his counsel’s performance or the trial court’s remedy.
Sessions argued ineffective assistance of counsel and plain error; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the ultimate appellate decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel's performance deficient under Strickland?	Sessions argues counsel failed to provide nondiscriminatory, gender-neutral explanations and misused strikes.	State contends the conduct was not objectively unreasonable and could be strategic given circumstances.	No, deficient performance not established; largely reasonable strategy under Batson framework.
Did the loss of two peremptory challenges warrant a presumption of prejudice?	Sessions asserts a presumption of prejudice under Strickland based on lost challenges.	State asserts no presumption of prejudice; prejudice must be shown actual or through broader Strickland framework.	No presumption of prejudice; no actual bias shown.
Was there plain-error in reinstating jurors and not restoring challenged peremptories?	Sessions claims obvious and prejudicial error in remedy chosen by trial court.	State argues remedy was within Batson discretion and not clearly erroneous.	No plain error; remedies were appropriate and not clearly erroneous.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits discrimination in jury selection based on race or gender)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009) (loss of peremptory challenges is not a freestanding structural error)
Arguelles v. State, 921 P.2d 439 (Utah 1996) (limits presumption of prejudice under Strickland; rejects extension to certain conduct)
Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516 (Utah 1994) ( Strickland prejudice focus on ultimate outcome of proceedings)
Randle v. Allen, 862 P.2d 1329 (Utah 1993) (prophylactic presumption of prejudice based on disparity of peremptory challenges under Rule 47)
Carrier v. Pro-Tech Restoration, 944 P.2d 346 (Utah 1997) (presumption of prejudice based on challenge disparity framed under Rule 47)
Winston v. Boatwright, 649 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2011) (discusses presumed prejudice under Batson-related theories)