Jury selection; Right to a fair & impartial jury; Anonymous jury; People v Hanks; Curative instruction; Prosecutorial misconduct; Right against self-incrimination; People v Barritt; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile objection; Prejudice

The court held that: (1) the use of juror numbers was not a violation of defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury; (2) the prosecution did not commit misconduct; and (3) he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of CSC I and II for sexual abusing the victim over the course of several months when she was eight years old. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court: (1) erred by referring to jurors by number, instead of by their names, meaning he was erroneously tried by an anonymous jury; and (2) failed to mitigate the prejudice caused by this practice by giving a cautionary instruction to the jury. Defendant’s “trial was only held before an anonymous jury ‘in a literal sense,’ purely because the jurors were referred to by pool number. The record contains no evidence that any of the potential dangers stemming from anonymous juries were present here. The use of juror numbers was therefore not a violation of defendant’s due-process right to a fair and impartial jury.” The court also rejected his claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her direct examination of the detective and during closing argument. “At most, the testimony that the prosecutor elicited referred to defendant’s prearrest silence, given that CPS and the police unsuccessfully attempted to contact him during the investigation.” Further, even “if the prosecutor had directly stated that defendant fled the state because he was attempting to avoid prosecution, ‘a prosecutor may comment on the inferences that may be drawn from a defendant’s flight.’” Finally, the court rejected his contention that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for (1) failing to object to the prosecutor’s questioning of the detective; (2) failing to object to the prosecutor’s statement regarding his flight from the state during closing argument; and (3) eliciting testimony regarding his refusal to speak with CPS or the police. “Even if we agreed that trial counsel’s questioning was objectively unreasonable, defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced by defense counsel’s performance, given that the prosecutor presented ample additional evidence in support of his guilt.” Affirmed.