Summary
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to a “CSI-effect” voir dire question during Antonio McGhee’s 2007 murder trial. Applying Strickland v. Washington, the Court evaluated counsel’s performance under the professional norms existing at the time of the conduct and declined to assess it using later decisions concerning CSI-effect jury instructions and voir dire. The Court therefore reversed the post-conviction court’s grant of a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Charles v. State, Atkins v. State, and Stabb v. State should apply retroactively on collateral review when evaluating an ineffective-assistance claim arising from counsel's failure to object to a CSI-effect voir dire question.
- Whether trial counsel's failure to object to the CSI-effect voir dire question at McGhee's 2007 trial constituted deficient performance under Strickland.
Holdings
- A court may not use later-decided cases to assess whether counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland. The performance inquiry must be based on the prevailing professional norms at the time of counsel's conduct.
- McGhee failed to prove that counsel's failure to object to the CSI-effect voir dire question in December 2007 fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. At that time, prevailing professional norms did not require such an objection.
Key quotations
“The right to effective assistance of counsel aims to ensure a fair trial.” (23-24)
“Thus, the post-conviction court erred in determining that McGhee received ineffective assistance of counsel.” (29-30)
Factual background
In December 2007, a jury convicted McGhee of murdering Keith Dreher outside a Papa Johns restaurant. During voir dire, the trial court asked whether jurors believed the State had to present fingerprint, DNA, blood, ballistic, or other scientific evidence to prove guilt, and defense counsel did not object. The State presented eyewitness identification evidence, evidence that McGhee fled while apparently carrying a shotgun, forensic evidence that was inconclusive as to the murder weapon, and alleged incriminating statements; McGhee presented an alibi and denied being the shooter.
Procedural history
A jury convicted McGhee of first-degree murder in 2007, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed his conviction on direct appeal; the Court of Appeals denied certiorari. McGhee filed a post-conviction petition in 2014. The post-conviction court granted relief and ordered a new trial, finding ineffective assistance based principally on counsel's failure to object to a CSI-effect voir dire question. The Court of Special Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the intermediate appellate court.