Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Two Divided Habeas Opinions on the sixth in One Day:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_08-2007_07_14.shtml#1184337787
In 1987, Abdul Haliym (then known as Wayne Frazier) was sentenced to
death by an Ohio court for his role in the murders of Marcellus
Williams and Joann Richards in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. After
exhausting his state law remedies, Haliym filed a federal habeas
petition asserting some 20 grounds for relief, all of which were
denied in federal district court. Today in [1]Haliym v. Mitchell, a
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously
rejected Haliym's appeal with regard to his conviction, but ruled
favorably, by a 2-1 vote, on Haliym's claim that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his
sentencing.
Judge Clay, joined by Judge Merritt, concluded that Haliym was denied
effective assistance of counsel because his attorney "failed to
discover important mitigating information that was reasonably
available and suggested by information already within their
possession," and that Haliym demostrated prejudice from this failure.
had counsel conducted a thorough investigation, they could have
presented a dramatically different picture of Petitioner�s life
than the picture presented at sentencing. As the trial court and
the Ohio Supreme Court were presented with almost no mitigating
evidence supporting a sentence other than death, it is not entirely
surprising that each court concluded that the balance of factors
favored the death penalty. Had Petitioner put the available
mitigation evidence on the other side of the balance, though the
Ohio courts might still have determined that death was the
appropriate sentence, such evidence also �might well have
influenced the [factfinder�s] appraisal of [Petitioner�s] moral
culpability.�
Judge Siler dissented.
In a second case, [2]In re Abdur'Rahman, a divided panel of the same
court (again) ruled against Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman's efforts to
chellenge his conviction. As Judge Siler, joined by Judge Batchelder,
summarized in his opinion for the court:
In 2004, our en banc court concluded that Abu-Ali Abdur�Rahman�s
post-judgment motion should be treated as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion rather than a second or successive habeas petition. In re
Abdur�Rahman, 392 F.3d 174, 182 (6th Cir. 2004), vacated, Bell v.
Abdur�Rahman, 545 U.S. 1151 (2005). In 2005, the Supreme Court
granted certiorari in this case, vacated our previous judgment, and
remanded for our consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 524 (2005). Bell, 545 U.S. 1151. Based on Gonzalez,
Abdur�Rahman�s motion should be treated as a motion pursuant to
Rule 60(b), not a second or successive habeas petition. However, we
dismiss his motion as untimely.
Judge Cole dissented, arguing that once the panel concluded
(correctly, in his view) that Abdur'Rahman's motion should be treated
as a Rule 60(b) motion, it should have remanded the case back to the
trial court. He further argued that even if the case were not
remanded, it should not be considered untimely. Of note, one of the
issues that divided the majority and dissent in this case is how to
treat aspects of the Sixth Circuit's prior en banc decision in the
case that had been vacated by the Supreme Court after Gonzales.
References
1. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf
2. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0264p-06.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
