In State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007 Ohio 4836, 873 N.E.2d 828, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained: "We have consistently declined to second-guess trial strategy decisions or impose 'hindsight views about how current counsel might have voir dired the jury differently.' State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 157, 1998 Ohio 370, 694 N.E.2d 932. See, also, State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248, 2002 Ohio 7247, 781 N.E.2d 980, P139; State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 539, 2001 Ohio 112, 747 N.E.2d 765; Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 143-144. "'Few decisions at trial are as subjective or prone to individual attorney strategy as juror voir dire, where decisions are often made on the basis of intangible factors.' Miller v. Francis (C.A.6, 2001), 269 F.3d 609, 620. 'The selection of a jury is inevitably a call upon experience and intuition. The trial lawyer must draw upon his own insights and empathetic abilities. Written records give us only shadows for measuring the quality of such efforts. The selection process is more an art than a science, and more about people than about rules.' Romero v. Lynaugh (C.A.5, 1989), 884 F.2d 871, 878. For these reasons, we have recognized that 'counsel is in the best position to determine whether any potential juror should be questioned and to what extent.' Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d at 539; see, also, Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 143. "In some cases, asking few or no questions of a prospective juror 'may be the best tactic for a number of reasons. For example, questioning by other parties may convince counsel that the juror would be favorable for the defense, and that further questions might only antagonize the juror or give the prosecution a reason to use a peremptory challenge or even grounds for a challenge for cause.' People v. Freeman (1994), 8 Cal.4th 450, 485, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 558, 882 P.2d 249." Mundt at P63-65.