UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LAWRENCE REYNOLDS ...

116 Pages·2007·0.23 MB·English

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE REYNOLDS, :

Petitioner-Appellant
:

vs. : CASE NO. 03-3822

MARGARET BAGLEY, WARDEN : (Death Penalty Case)

Respondent-Appellee
:

On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

FINAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT-APPELLEE BAGLEY

Respectfully submitted,
JIM PETRO (0022096)
Attorney General

DANIEL R. RANKE
(0047136)
Assistant Attorney General
Capital Crimes Section
615 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio, 44113-1899
[phone]; [phone] (fax)

Counsel for Respondent-Appellee
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page:

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................. iv
FACT SHEET FOR STATE HABEAS CORPUS APPEALS................................. x
ISSUES .....................................................................................................................1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .........................................................................3
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ..............................................4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................5
State Trial Proceedings ...................................................................................5
State Appellate Proceedings ...........................................................................8
State Post-Conviction Proceedings .................................................................9
State Application to Re-Open Direct Appeal Proceedings ...........................11
Federal Habeas Proceedings .........................................................................11
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................................13
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .....................................................................18
STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................21
ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................25
I. REYNOLDS WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN STATE OR FEDERAL
COURT ...............................................................................................25
II. REYNOLDS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL WAS NOT VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL
COURT'S DISCRETIONARY CONDUCT DURING
VOIR DIRE OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS..............................37
III. REYNOLDS WAS NOT DENIED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL REGARDING THE
UTILIZATION OF EXPERT ASSISTANCE....................................52
IV. REYNOLDS WAS NOT DENIED HIS RIGHT TO
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING
THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE CAPITAL TRIAL.
i i
TRIAL COUNSELS' MITIGATION INVESTIGATION
WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT...................................74
V. REYNOLDS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A
FAIR SENTENCING PROCEEDING WERE NOT
VIOLATED THROUGH THE OHIO TRIAL COURT'S
SENTENCING OPINION, THE WEIGHING PROCESS
UTILIZED BY THE OHIO COURTS OR THROUGH
THE TIMING OF THE FILING OF THE TRIAL
COURT'S SENTENCING OPINION.................................................89
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................101
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.....................................................................102
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..............................................................................103
DESIGNATION OF APPENDIX CONTENTS....................................................104

ii i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases........................................................................................................Page
Abdur'rahman v. Bell
226 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2000).....................................................................32
Alley v. Bell
307 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2002).....................................................................26
Baja v. Ducharme
187 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1999)...................................................................33
Baston v. Bagley
420 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2005).....................................................................99
Baze v. Parker
371 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2004)................................................................84-85
Bell v. Cone
543 U.S. 447 (2005) ............................................................................39, 54
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002)................................................................75
Boardman v. Estelle
937 F.2d 1523 (9th Cir. 1992)...................................................................92
Breard v. Green
523 U.S. 371 (1998) ..................................................................................24
Byrd v. Collins
209 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2000).....................................................................34
Campbell v. Coyle
260 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2002).....................................................................73
Cardwell v. Green
152 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998).....................................................................33
Carter v. Mitchell
443 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2006).....................................................................72
Chandler v. Jones
813 F.2d 773 (6th Cir. 1987).....................................................................57
Clark v. Mitchell
425 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2005)...............................................................84, 87
Clemons v. Mississippi
494 U.S. 738 (1990) ............................................90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
iv
Case...........................................................................................................Page
Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2000) ......................................53, 75
Cone v. Bell
243 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2001)...............................................................53, 75
Cooey v. Coyle
289 F.3d 882 (6th Cir. 2002)...............................................................96, 97
Cox v. General Electric Co.
302 F.2d 389 (6th Cir. 1962).....................................................................50
Dennis v. Mitchell
354 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2003).....................................................................43
Dowthitt v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2000)......................................34
Early v. Packer
537 U.S. 3 (2002) ......................................................................................39
Esparza v. Mitchell
310 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2002).....................................................................96
Fisher v. Lee
215 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2000).....................................................................33
Fox v. Coyle
271 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 2001).....................................................................96
Franklin v. Francis
144 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1998).....................................................................24
Green v. French
143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998).....................................................................92
Harpster v. Ohio
128 F.3d 322, 326 (6th Cir. 1998).............................................................24
Harries v. Bell
417 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2005)...............................................................86, 87
Herbert v. Billy
160 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1998)...................................................................24
Hill v. Brigano
199 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1999).....................................................................43
Hill v. Mitchell
400 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2005)...................................................62, 63, 68, 83

v
Case...........................................................................................................Page
Hill v. United States
368 U.S. (1962) .........................................................................................92
Irwin v. Dowd
366 U.S. 717 (1961) ............................................................................42, 43
Kavanaugh v. Berge
73 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 1996).......................................................................35
Keeney v. Tomayo-Reyes
504 U.S. 1 (1992) ....................................................................28, 29, 30, 31
Krist v. Foltz
804 F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1986).....................................................................57
Lindh v. Murphy
521 U.S. 320 (1997) ..................................................................................24
Lockhart v. Fretwell
506 U.S. 364 (1993) ..................................................................................57
Lorraine v. Coyle
291 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2002).....................................................................72
Lundgren v. Mitchell
440 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2006).............................................................66, 100
Lundy v. Campbell
888 F.2d 467 (6th Cir. 1989)...............................................................23, 24
McDonald v. Johnson
139 F.3d 1056 (5th Cir. 1998)...................................................................35
Meeks v. Bergen
749 F.2d 322 (6th Cir. 1984)...............................................................56, 57
Mitchell v. Esparza
540 U.S. 12 (2003) ..............................................................................38, 54
Mitchell v. Rees
114 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 1997).....................................................................30
Morgan v. Illinois
504 U.S. 719 (1992) ................................................................38, 42, 43, 44
Mu'min v. Virginia
500 U.S. 415 (1991) ..................................................................................44
Murphy v. Florida
421 U.S. 794 (1975) ..................................................................................43
v i
Case...........................................................................................................Page
Murphy v. Johnson
205 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2000).....................................................................33
Nevers v. Killenger
169 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 1999)...............................................................23, 24
Ohio v. Reynolds
524 U.S. 930 (1998) ....................................................................................9
Pasquarille v. United States
130 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir. 1997)...................................................................92
Patton v. Yount
467 U.S. 1025 (1984) ..........................................................................43, 44
Price v. Vincnet
538 U.S. 634 (2003) ..................................................................................39
Rompilla v. Beard
125 S.Ct. 2456 (2005) ...............................................................................85
Rosales-Lopez v. United States
451 U.S. 182 (1981) ..................................................................................43
Ruiz v. Norris
71 F.3d 1404 (8th Cir. 1995)......................................................................36
Skaggs v. Parker
235 F.3d 261 (6th Cir. 2000).....................................................................66
Slaughter v. Parker
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14384, 2006 FED. App. 0195P (6th Cir.)...........84
Smith v. Mitchell
384 F.3d 177 (6nd Cir. 2003)..............................................................70, 84
Smith v. Mitchell
348 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 2003)...................................................44, 52, 54, 55
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) ...........................................................................passim
Sumner v. Mata
499 U.S. 539 (1981) ......................................................................28, 29, 30
Townsend v. Sain
372 U.S. 293 (1963) ............................................................................27, 28

vi i
Case...........................................................................................................Page
United States v. Smith
784 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir. 1984)...................................................................44
White v. Mitchell
431 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2005)...................................................26, 36, 60, 61
Wiliams v. Bagley
380 F.3d 932 (6th Cir. 2005)...............................................................26, 43
Williams v. Coyle
167 F.3d 1036 (6th Cir. 1999)...................................................................24
Williams v. Taylor
529 U.S. 362 (2000) ......................................................................21, 24, 31

State Cases...............................................................................................Page
Defiance v. Cannon
70 Ohio App.3d 821 (1990).......................................................................94
State v. Dennis
79 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997)..........................................................................62
State v. Hicks
43 Ohio St.3d 72 (1989)............................................................................62
State v. Reynolds
80 Ohio St.3d 670 (1998)...................................................................passim
State v. Reynolds
88 Ohio St.3d 1425 (2001)..................................................................10, 11
State v. Reynolds
(July 10, 1996), Summit App. No. 16845, unreported........8, 10, 58, 77, 78

Statutes.....................................................................................................Page
28 U.S.C § 2254.....................................................................................passim
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1).................................................................................23
O.R.C. §2903.01 .............................................................................................5
O..R.C. §2929.04(A).......................................................................................5
O.R.C. §2911.01(A)....................................................................................5, 6
vi i i
O.R.C. §2907.02(A)(2)...................................................................................6
O.R.C. §2929.022 ...........................................................................................7

Rules ........................................................................................................Page
Ohio Supreme Court Rule 37........................................................................10
Ohio Rules of Superintendence Rule 65.........................................................7
Ohio Criminal Rule 32(A)............................................................................93
Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B)...........................................................................11
Fed. R. App. Pro. 32(a)(7)..........................................................................102

ix
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH CIRCUIT
FACT SHEET FOR STATE HABEAS CORPUS APPEALS

6th Cir. R. 20 requires that counsel for the appellant and for the appellee file a one-
page fact sheet in all habeas corpus 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 appeals. The fact sheet
should be the same size as the pages in the brief. It should be placed in the briefs
of the parties immediately following the table of contents and preceding the
statement of issues presented for review. Use this form, 6CA-57.

Case Name and Number: Margaret Bagley, Warden, Respondent-Appellee v.
Lawrence Reynolds, Petitioner-Appellant, Case No. 03-3822.

Person Reporting: Daniel R. Ranke, Assistant Attorney General

1. Has this conviction(s) been previously litigated in the United States Courts?
( ) Yes ( X ) No
If yes, give brief history: N/A

2. Constitutional violation claims (name constitutional provision and briefly
recite facts asserted as violative):

a. Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments--the right to
effective assistance of counsel; right to due process; right to fair trial
and sentencing.

3. Have remedies been exhausted as to claims listed above?

a. ( X ) Yes ( ) No

4. Are there fact disputes concerning claims?
( ) Yes ( X ) No

If "yes," were they resolved by the District Court
( ) at a hearing?
( ) by review of the state court record?
( ) by reference to a Magistrate?

5. Does the state argue that any constitutional violations, if found, were
harmless beyond reasonable doubt?

x