What is the legal test for ineffective assistance in a motion to exclude a prospective juror?

"In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance, a defendant must first show counsel's performance was deficient because the representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. [Citation.] Second, he must show prejudice flowing from counsel's performance or lack thereof. Prejudice is shown when there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 214-215.)

"The legal standard for evaluating the propriety of the exclusion or inclusion of a prospective juror is the same. [Citation.] A challenge to a prospective juror should be sustained when the juror's views would 'prevent or substantially impair' the performance of his or her duties as a juror in accordance with the instructions and oath. [Citations.] If the prospective juror's responses to voir dire questions are conflicting or equivocal, the

Page 5

trial court's determination is binding on the reviewing court. [Citation.]" (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 456-457.)