Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

July 7th thru 10th, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Death Penalty
- Public policy - wrongfully discharged
- Ineffective assistance of counsel
- Writ of habeas corpus
- DNA testing
- First Amendment right - access to court proceedings
- Stay of execution
- Search and Seizure
- Sentencing
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Were (July 7, 2006) (2006-Ohio-3511)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-3511.pdf
-  Despite two supplements to the record in a death-penalty prosecution - a transcript of an afternoon session during the penalty phase of the defendant's trial and questionnaires completed by the prospective jurors - evidence in the penalty phase did not establish that the defendant was mentally retarded, and the aggravating circumstances the defendant was found guilty of committing outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon an independent review of all the facts and evidence in the record, the aggravating circumstances the defendant was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, and that the sentence of death was appropriate. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Smith-Johnston v. City of Cincinnati, et al. (July 7, 2006) (2006-Ohio-3510)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-3510.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of a city and its city manager in a suit alleging that the defendants had wrongfully discharged the plaintiff in violation of public policy:  Although there was a policy in favor of investigating misconduct on the part of city employees, the plaintiff exceeded her authority as manager of the city's Office of Municipal Investigation when she threatened to bring a mandamus action against the city to compel the police division to release records; and because the city manager had the ultimate authority over internal investigations, the actions of the plaintiff constituted insubordination and did not advance the asserted public policy. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

Dickerson v. Bagley  (Appeal from N.D. Ohio) (July 7, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0232p-06.pdf
-  Our review of the record in this case reveals that counsel for Dickerson at the mitigation phase of the bifurcated proceeding rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Counsel did not properly conduct a mitigation investigation and, therefore, did not learn of or prove facts about Dickerson's family, educational, social and medical history * for example, with an IQ of 77, he was at the borderline of retardation * that would have given thethree-judge panel strong reasons for reducing the penalty from death to life imprisonment. The decisions of the Ohio courts and the district court below excuse counsel's failure to investigate mitigation evidence on the ground of "trial strategy and tactics." This theory is flatly contradicted by the holdings of a series of Supreme Court cases and Sixth Circuit cases, as discussed below. We will first set forth the standard of review under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We will next discuss this ineffective assistance of counsel claim as the basis for our granting of habeas relief requiring a new trial at the sentencing phase of the case. We will then focus on other claims that do not justify the grant of relief.
 
Keith v. Mitchell (Appeal from N.D. Ohio) (July 10, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0237p-06.pdf
-  Kevin Keith appeals the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Six claims were certified for appeal. Three claims concern ineffective assistance of trial counsel: (1) failure to properly investigate and present mitigation evidence; (2) failure to object to the court's removal of "scrupled jurors" during voir dire; and (3) failure to conduct meaningful voir dire. Two claims concern the trial court's actions: (4) removing scrupled jurors without attempting to rehabilitate them; and (5) failure to inquire into Keith's reasons for filing an affidavit of indigency. The final claim (6) is that the cumulative effects of the above errors deprived Keith of his rights to effective assistance of counsel, a fair trial, and fair sentencing. Finding no prejudicial error in the proceedings below, we affirm the denial of Keith's petition for habeas corpus.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

USA v. Conley (Appeal from W.D. Tenn.) (July 7, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0231p-06.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant Bobbie Conley appeals the order of the district court requiring her to submit to blood sampling for DNA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14135a. The order was imposed as part of Conley's sentence following the entry of her guilty plea to one count of bank fraud. Conley claims that in her case, the order constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure of her person under the Fourth Amendment. The district court stayed the order pending disposition of this appeal. For the reasons that follow, the order of the district court requiring the DNA testing is affirmed.
 
KY Press Assn Inc v. Comwlth of KY (Appeal from E.D. Ky.) (July 7, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0233p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Kentucky Press Association ("KPA"), a non-profit corporation whose members include newspapers throughout Kentucky, appeals the dismissal for failure to state a claim of its suit against Defendants-Appellants the Commonwealth of Kentucky and various Kentucky court officials (collectively, "the Commonwealth"), claiming violation of KPA's First Amendment right of access to court proceedings. Specifically, KPA makes a facial challenge to four Kentucky statutory provisions, claiming that they deny the media any access to Kentucky's juvenile court proceedings and records pertinent thereto. The district court rejected the Commonwealth's jurisdictional, abstention, and sovereign immunity arguments, but held that KPA's complaint did not state a claim for a First Amendment right of access to juvenile records and proceedings. Because KPA has not challenged the relevant statutes in the Kentucky courts, which could well render an interpretation of these statutes that provides for the access that KPA seeks and thus avoids the constitutional issue presented in this case, we will dismiss the appeal for failure to present a case or controversy sufficiently ripe for adjudication, and remand this case to the district court with instructions that it be dismissed on that ground.
 
Martiniano v. Bell (Appeal from M.D. Tenn.) (July 7, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0234p-06.pdf
-  This is a parallel case to Kirkpatrick v. Bell, No. 03-5526, 64 F. App'x 495 (6th Cir. May 5, 2003). Both cases involve Paul Dennis Reid, and both cases involve a relative to Reid petitioning the court on the eve of execution in a murder case. The only difference is that the petitioners in each case are different persons and the convictions in each case involve separate homicides. The convictions in the Kirkpatrick case involved homicides in Davidson County, and the convictions in this case involved homicides in Montgomery County, all in Tennessee. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a stay of execution and decline to grant the State's motion to vacate the stay for the reasons stated herein.
 
Shreve v. Jessamine Cnty  (Appeal from E.D. Ky.) (July 7, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0235p-06.pdf
-  This appeal seeks reversal of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant sheriff's deputies, who allegedly used excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and state law when they arrested plaintiff Lori Shreve. Shreve further alleges that the deputies unlawfully entered and searched her home to arrest her in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants include the Jessamine County Fiscal Court, and the deputies in their official capacity. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, holding that no constitutional violation occurred. The district court also held that the deputies lawfully searched Shreve's home to find and arrest her pursuant to a valid misdemeanor arrest warrant. Summary judgment was not warranted on Shreve's excessive force claim because she has provided sufficient, if spare, evidence of a violation of her clearly established right to be free from excessive police force in the course of arrest.Summary judgment was however warranted with respect to Shreve's claims for unlawful entry and search of her home to arrest her. Like our sister circuits we read Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), to permit forcible entry into the home to search for and arrest a suspect pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, regardless of whether the arrest is for a misdemeanor or a felony. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
 
USA v. Shepherd (Appeal from M.D. Tenn.) (July 10, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0238p-06.pdf
-  Defendant William Carrol Shepherd appeals his sentence of eighty-seven months imposed by the district court following defendant's plea of guilty to five counts of distributing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A)), one count of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)), and one count of criminal forfeiture (18 U.S.C. § 2253A and Rule 7(c)(2)). Approximately one month after the Supreme Court's landmark decision, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court calculated defendant's Federal Sentencing Guideline range to be 87 to 108 months and ruled, pursuant to the rationale of the Booker remedial opinion (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court), that the Guidelines were advisory regarding defendant's convictions. Judge Todd J. Campbell proceeded to sentence defendant to the low end of the Guidelines, eighty-seven months. Defendant now appeals his sentence, and we affirm.
 
USA v. Worley (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.) (July 10, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0239p-06.pdf
-  The defendant, Jeffrey Worley, is before this court for a second time, again contesting the sentence imposed on the basis of his guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We affirmed his conviction and sentence at the time of his initial appeal. See United States v. Worley, 100 Fed.Appx. 514 (6th Cir. 2004). However, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of the Court's simultaneously released decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), presumably because Worley was sentenced under guidelines that were considered mandatory at the time, a scheme held to violate the Sixth Amendment in Booker. See Worley v. United States, 543 U.S. 1109 (2005). We, in turn, remanded the case to the district court for re-sentencing in conformity with the Booker opinion.