Trim v. Shepard, 300 Ga. 176

Background

McClain, Simon, and Trim were convicted by a Gwinnett County jury of crimes arising from an attempted robbery; Trim also convicted of aggravated assault.
During voir dire a prospective juror disclosed her daughter had been prosecuted in the same county by the same prosecutor and represented in that case by Trim’s trial counsel; she expressed discomfort serving.
The prosecutor moved to strike the juror for cause; defendants objected, but the trial court excused the juror over their objections.
On direct appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed Simon and Trim for sufficiency but reversed McClain, holding the trial court’s voir dire inquiry was inadequate before striking the juror for cause.
Simon and Trim sought habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the juror-strike claim; the habeas court denied Trim’s petition and he appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
The Georgia Supreme Court considered whether Trim proved his appellate counsel was deficient and whether a properly presented juror-strike claim had clear and strong merit such that failure to raise it constituted ineffective assistance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the juror-strike claim on direct appeal	Trim: counsel should have raised the same juror-excusal claim that prevailed for McClain in Simon	State: the juror-strike claim lacked clear and strong merit; reasonable appellate strategy can omit doubtful claims	Counsel was not ineffective; Trim failed to show the omitted claim had clear and strong merit and thus no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether the trial court abused discretion by excusing the juror for cause without an "adequate" voir dire inquiry	McClain (on direct appeal): trial court erred by excusing juror without adequate inquiry	State: trial courts have broad discretion; excusal was proper given juror’s expressed discomfort and relationships	Court expressed doubt about the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Kim and found the juror-excusal claim did not have clear and strong merit
Whether an erroneous challenge for cause requires reversal absent prejudice to jury composition	Trim: relitigation based on excused juror warranted relief	State: even erroneous strikes generally require no reversal if a competent, unbiased jury was seated	Held that established law requires showing the selected 12 were not competent and unbiased; Trim did not show that
Whether Kim v. Walls imposes an independent duty on trial judges to question venire members when counsel decline further questions	Trim (via McClain claim): Kim required more judicial questioning	State: Poole clarified Kim does not impose such a duty when counsel decline further inquiry	Court relied on Poole to limit Kim and concluded Kim was not a clear basis to fault the trial court

Key Cases Cited

Simon v. State, 320 Ga. App. 15 (Court of Appeals decision reversing McClain on voir dire adequacy)
Kim v. Walls, 275 Ga. 177 (discusses trial judge’s role in ensuring adequate voir dire)
Poole v. State, 291 Ga. 848 (clarifies Kim does not impose duty on judge to independently question venire when counsel do not)
Murdock v. State, 299 Ga. 177 (trial judge uniquely positioned to assess juror impartiality)
Bryant v. State, 288 Ga. 876 (erroneous allowing or disallowing challenge for cause does not require reversal if competent unbiased jury was selected)
Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63 (defendant must show actual bias or incompetence in the seated jury to obtain relief)
Wells v. State, 261 Ga. 282 (party is entitled to an impartial jury, not to any particular juror)