Does the exclusion of Juror No. 2's testimony in a sexual assault case invalidate defendants' claim of ineffective assistance?

Because we find no error in the exclusion of Juror No. 2's testimony, defendants' claim of ineffective assistance also fails. "To secure reversal of a conviction upon the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal Constitution, a defendant must establish (1) that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., that counsel's performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel's shortcomings." (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003.) "If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed." (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697.) As the juror's testimony was properly disallowed, citing to section 704 would not have resulted in a more favorable outcome for defendants.

Page 12