234 (D.C.Cir.2007); United States v. Smith, 424 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Chipps, 410 F.3d 438, 447-48 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Goodine, 400 F.3d 202, 207-08 (4th Cir.2005). 13 . Powell also makes a collateral estoppel claim related to his Double Jeopardy claim. Because this claim was found procedurally barred during state habeas proceedings, it will be discussed with his other defaulted claims, infra Part VIII.A. 14 . ''J.A.” refers to the Joint Appendix of Powell’s direct appeal of his second conviction. "H.A.,” cited elsewhere in this Memorandum Opinion, refers to the Appendix submitted with Powell’s petition for state habeas corpus relief. 15 . Va.Code § 8.01-358 (emphasis added); see LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 304 S.E.2d 644, 653 (1983) (<HOLDING>). 16 .See also Thomas v. Davis, 192 F.3d 445,
holding that if a voir dire question would necessarily disclose or clearly lead to the disclosure of the statutory factors of relationship interest opinion or prejudice it must be permitted holding questions meant to expose jurors bias and tendencies permitted during voir dire holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice