Can a defense counsel's conduct at the voir dire affect the standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms?

Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that defense counsel's performance during jury selection fell below the standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms because she may have had strategic reasons for her conduct during voir dire. As an initial matter, the trial court admonished the jurors to follow its instructions, and thereafter instructed them that they were to decide the case on the facts and were not to allow passion or prejudice to influence their decision. The trial court then repeated that instruction, both before and after the evidentiary phase of the trial. Thus, defense counsel may have reasonably concluded that the trial court's admonitions to the jury in this regard were sufficient to ensure that the jurors would not decide the case based on passion or prejudice. Indeed, counsel was entitled to assume the jurors would follow the trial court's instructions on those issues. (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 957.) And defendant has cited nothing in the record of the voir dire to suggest that one or more of the empaneled jurors gave some indication that they would ignore the court's instructions and allow prejudice against defendant to influence his or her decision.