RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 14a0217p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

JOSÉ TRINIDAD LOZA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BETTY MITCHELL, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

No. 11-3453

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.

No. 1:98-cv-287—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.

Argued: December 5, 2012

Decided and Filed: September 2, 2014 

Before: GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Laurence E. Komp, Manchester, Missouri, for Appellant. David M. Henry,

OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Michael J. O’Hara, O’HARA, RUBERG, TAYLOR, SLOAN & SERGENT, Covington,

Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae. ON BRIEF: Laurence E. Komp, Manchester, Missouri,

James A. Wilson, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for

Appellant. David M. Henry, Thomas E. Madden, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY

GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. Michael J. O’Hara, O’HARA, RUBERG,

TAYLOR, SLOAN & SERGENT, Covington, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae.

GIBBONS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GRIFFIN, J., joined,

and WHITE, J., joined in part. WHITE, J. (pp. 46–48), delivered a separate opinion

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

1
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In 1991, Jose Trinidad Loza shot and

killed four members of his pregnant girlfriend’s family. An Ohio jury convicted him of

four counts of aggravated murder, and he was sentenced to death. Ohio state courts

affirmed Loza’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal and denied him postconviction relief. Loza filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court, which was

denied. On appeal, Loza argues that he is entitled to habeas relief on seven grounds.

We affirm the district court’s denial of Loza’s habeas petition.

I.

The Ohio Supreme Court described the facts and circumstances underlying

Loza’s convictions as follows:

On January 16, 1991, defendant-appellant, Jose Trinidad Loza,

shot four members of the family of his girlfriend, Dorothy Jackson. The

victims were shot in the head at close range while they slept in their

home in Middletown, Ohio. Loza shot Jackson’s mother, Georgia Davis;

her brother, Gary Mullins; and her two sisters, Cheryl (Mullins) Senteno

and Jerri Luanna Jackson. Mullins died almost immediately from his

wound; Davis and Senteno survived several hours before dying. Jerri

Jackson, six months pregnant at the time of the shooting, died on January

31, 1991.

On the afternoon of January 16, 1991, Gary Hoertt observed an

individual in a white Mazda pick-up truck with California plates loading

trash into his dumpster at his shop in Middletown. Having had previous

problems with the unauthorized use of his dumpster, Hoertt searched the

dumpster for something with which to identify the individual. Hoertt

found a letter in the dumpster signed by Loza with a return address in

Butler County. Hoertt read the letter, the contents of which indicated that

Loza was involved in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles and that he

came to Ohio to avoid apprehension by the Los Angeles police.

After reading the letter, Hoertt called the Warren County Sheriff’s

Department to report his discovery. Hoertt was informed that it would

take some time before a deputy could respond. During that time, Hoertt
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 3

was informed by an employee that the individual, later identified as Loza,

and a female companion were seen in the vicinity of the nearby

Greyhound bus station. Hoertt then called Middletown police detective

Roger Knable.

After Knable arrived at Hoertt’s shop and read the letter, Knable

and Hoertt went to the dumpster, where they retrieved other items that

Loza had discarded, which included: a knife; an empty box for a .25

caliber Raven automatic handgun; a receipt signed by a Judy A. Smith

for the purchase of the handgun on January 15, 1991; a woman’s purse;

a blank check on the account of Georgia L. Davis; a general money order

made payable to Jose Loza; clothing; and some other personal items.

As Hoertt and Knable were going through the items in Hoertt’s

office, Hoertt saw Loza approach the dumpster. Knable went to his

cruiser and requested his dispatcher to notify Warren County deputies

that the individual had returned and that he was going to speak to him.

Knable identified himself as a police officer, approached Loza with his

gun in his hand, and instructed Loza to place his hands on the front of the

car. Knable searched Loza and asked his name. At this time, Loza

identified himself as “Jose Rodriguez.” Knable told Loza the reason he

was being stopped was because of what he put in the dumpster. Loza

responded “yes.” Knable said the letter indicated that Loza may have

been involved in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles. Loza again

responded “yes.” Knable then informed Loza that he was going to

handcuff him and hold him until Warren County deputies arrived.

Knable then went to locate the woman who had been seen with Loza

earlier. Loza said that the woman’s name was Cynthia Rodriguez, that

she was his wife, and that they were headed to California.

Knable then went inside the bus station and approached Dorothy

Jackson. He asked her name and she responded “Dorothy Jackson.”

When asked, Jackson stated that Loza’s name was “Jose Rodriguez,” and

that they were not married. Within a short time after Knable’s initial

contact with Loza, Warren County deputies arrived. The deputies

determined Jackson was under age and that she planned to travel to

California with Loza. When asked, Jackson gave her mother’s telephone

number to the deputies. Knable was unsuccessful in reaching Davis,

Jackson’s mother, by phone. Detectives Knable and George Jeffery then

went to Davis’s home at 1408 Fairmont, but did not receive any response

when they knocked at the door. A neighbor approached the detectives

and said that she had been trying unsuccessfully all day to get someone

from the house to respond.

Because the police were unable to determine if Jackson had

permission to travel out of state, she was arrested for being an unruly
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 4

minor and was taken to the Warren County Juvenile Detention Center.

Loza was arrested for contributing to the delinquency or unruliness of a

minor and was taken to the Warren County Justice Center.

When the detectives began questioning Jackson at the juvenile

detention center, she did not initially tell them of the murders. Shortly

into the questioning, she began crying. She said she did not want to go

to jail, and that Loza had killed her family. Jackson then told the

detectives what she knew about the murders.

Based upon Jackson’s statement, Detective Knable obtained a

search warrant for the house at 1408 Fairmont. When the police entered

the house, they discovered the victims.

Knable and Jeffery then returned to the Warren County Justice

Center and began questioning Loza. The detectives’ interview with Loza

was videotaped. At the beginning of the interview, Loza waived his

Miranda rights. Initially, Loza said that he and Jackson were traveling

to California with her mother’s permission. The detectives told Loza

they knew what had happened, and that it would be in his, Jackson’s and

the unborn baby’s best interest if he just told the truth. About one hour

into the interview, Loza confessed to the murders. Loza detailed the

murders, including the order in which he shot the victims. Loza stated

that Jackson was not in the house at the time of the murders, and that she

did not know that he was going to kill her family members.

The detectives asked Loza when he began thinking about

murdering Jackson’s family members. Loza responded that he had been

thinking about it since he had obtained the gun and particularly after

Davis had threatened to have him arrested if he tried to leave the state

with Jackson. Loza explained that he shot Davis because of her threats.

When asked why he shot the others, he responded: “Knowing I had to do

one, I had to do all. * * * Because if I only done one, they would

have—they would have known it was me. If I would have done all of

them, nobody would have found out.”

State v. Loza, 641 N.E.2d 1082, 1091–92 (Ohio 1994).

In 1991, a jury convicted Loza of four counts of aggravated murder. It

recommended that Loza be sentenced to death for the aggravated murders of Mullins,

Senteno, and Jerri Jackson. It recommend that Loza be sentenced to thirty years’ to life

imprisonment for the aggravated murder of Davis. The trial court accepted the jury’s

recommendation.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 5

The Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Loza’s

convictions and sentences. State v. Loza, 641 N.E.2d 1082 (Ohio 1994); State v. Loza,

No. CA 91-11-198, 1993 WL 120028 (Ohio Ct. App. April 19, 1993). The Ohio

Supreme Court denied Loza’s motion for reconsideration. State v. Loza, 643 N.E.2d 142

(1994) (table decision). The Butler County Court of Common Pleas denied Loza’s

petition for post-conviction relief, and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. State v.

Loza, No. CA 96-10-214, 1997 WL 634348 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 13, 1997). The Ohio

Supreme Court declined discretionary review of Loza’s appeal, stating that it posed no

substantial constitutional question. State v. Loza, 689 N.E.2d 49 (Ohio 1998) (table

decision).

Loza filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, asserting

thirty-four grounds for relief. The district court dismissed several of Loza’s claims as

procedurally defaulted. It denied Loza’s remaining claims and dismissed the action.

The district court certified fourteen issues for appeal, and this court granted a certificate

of appealability on one additional issue. Loza raises seven of these issues on appeal.

Loza abandoned the issues that he failed to raise, and we do not consider them. Post v.

Bradshaw, 621 F.3d 406, 413–14 (6th Cir. 2010).

II.

In an appeal of a § 2254 habeas action, we review the district court’s legal

conclusions de novo. Cristini v. McKee, 526 F.3d 888, 897 (6th Cir. 2008). “‘[W]here

the district court has made factual determinations based on its review of trial transcripts

and other court records,’” we also review the district court’s factual conclusions de novo.

Dando v. Yukins, 461 F.3d 791, 796 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mackey v. Russell, 148 F.

App’x 355, 359 (6th Cir. 2005)). 

We review the decision of “the last state court to issue a reasoned opinion on the

issue[s]” raised in a habeas petition. Joseph v. Coyle, 469 F.3d 441, 450 (6th Cir. 2006);

see also Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991) (“Where there has been one

reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 6

that judgment or rejecting the same claim [are presumed to] rest upon the same

ground.”).

Loza filed his petition after the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). As a result, AEDPA governs our review.

Under § 2254(d):

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State

court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

The “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” clauses of § 2254(d)(1) have

independent meaning. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000). A state court’s

decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it “applies a rule that

contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases” or if it “confronts a

set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court

and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [this] precedent.” Id. at 405–06. A

state court’s decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law

if it “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts

of a particular prisoner’s case.” Id. at 407–08. “The ‘unreasonable application’ clause

requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous.” Lockyer v.

Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003). “The state court’s application of clearly established

law must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. The phrase “clearly established Federal

law” in § 2254(d)(1) “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme]

Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams, 529 U.S.

at 412. 
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 7

 A state court’s factual determination is not “unreasonable” within the meaning

of § 2254(d)(2) “merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different

conclusion in the first instance.” Wood v. Allen, 130 S. Ct. 841, 849 (2010). Even if

“[r]easonable minds reviewing the record” might disagree about a factual finding, “on

habeas review that does not suffice to supersede” the state court’s determination. Rice

v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 341–42 (2006). 

III.

Loza argues that the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly

established federal law when it held that the trial court properly refused to suppress

statements that Loza made to Detective Knable shortly after Knable encountered Loza

at Hoertt’s trash bin on the day of his arrest.

On the day of Loza’s arrest, Hoertt observed Loza putting items in the trash bin

at Hoertt’s shop. Hoertt searched the trash bin and found a letter in which the writer

stated that he was involved in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles. Hoertt contacted

Knable, who arrived and read the letter. A short time later, the men saw Loza return to

the trash bin. At the suppression hearing before the trial court, Knable explained what

happened next:

I went to my cruiser, my unmarked police car. I told the desk, my

dispatcher, that the individual who had placed this stuff in the dumpster

had returned to the dumpster, and was still in the area. I told them I was

going to approach him, notify Warren County to respond immediately if

possible. As I approached Mr. Loza, he turned to face my car. He had

on a, I believe, a blue and gray jacket. It appeared to me as though he

was reaching for his pocket. I got out of the car with my service gun to

my side. I advised him I was a police officer. I did display a badge. I

was not wearing a jacket. My badge was on my belt. I advised him to

place his hands on the top—on the hood of the car, which he did. I then

put my gun away, padded him down, and advised him that the reason

why I wanted to speak with him was because of the stuff he put in the

dumpster. I asked him his name, and he told me it was Jose Rodriguez.

At that point, I told him Warren County Sheriff’s Department was

on the way—they wanted to speak with him in reference to the letter. I

also, at that point, handcuffed him, placed him in the back of my car, told
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 8

him it would be approximately ten minutes before they arrived. At that

time I asked him where his friend was, or female companion. He stated

she was in the bus station.

Loza told Knable that Jackson’s name was Cynthia Rodriguez. Knable further

explained:

[W]hen I first got up and started talking to him, I said, “The reason I’m

stopping is because of what you put in the dumpster.” And he said,

“Yes.” And I said, “This letter there indicates that you may have been

involved in a shooting in Los Angeles. Again he said, “Yes.” At that

point I advised him that I was going to handcuff him, and hold him until

Warren County arrived.

Prior to trial, Loza moved to suppress his statements to Knable. Loza argued that

Knable’s seizure of Loza violated the Fourth Amendment. He also argued that Knable

failed to provide him with warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

(1966), prior to questioning him, in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against

self-incrimination. The trial court denied Loza’s motion. At trial, Knable testified that

Loza provided false names for himself and Dorothy Jackson. The State referenced this

fact in opening and closing arguments.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Loza’s argument that he was unlawfully

seized. It concluded that Knable conducted a lawful investigatory stop pursuant to Terry

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1097–98. The court also rejected

Loza’s claim that his statements to Knable should have been suppressed:

Appellant’s contention that the statements he made to Knable

after being stopped should be suppressed because he was not given

Miranda warnings is baseless. Knable merely asked Loza his name and

other general questions associated with a police investigation. This type

of questioning is not affected by the Supreme Court’s holding in

Miranda.

Id. at1098 (citation omitted).

Loza now argues that the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly

established federal law when it failed to recognize that he was in custody at the time that
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 9

Knable questioned him and, consequently, that Knable was required to advise him of his

Miranda rights. Loza’s argument implicates two constitutional doctrines.

First, the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o

person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S.

Const. amend V. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that in order to protect

the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, a suspect “must be warned prior to

any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used

against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that

if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if

he so desires.” 384 U.S. at 479. “An officer’s obligation to administer Miranda

warnings attaches . . . ‘only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s

freedom as to render him ‘in custody.’” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322

(1994) (per curiam) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977) (per

curiam)). “In determining whether an individual was in custody, a court must examine

all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but ‘the ultimate inquiry is simply

whether there [was] a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree

associated with a formal arrest.’” Id. (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125

(1983) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The initial custody

determination “depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the

subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being

questioned. Id. at 323.

Additionally, the Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be

secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const.

amend. IV. In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that when a law enforcement

officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal

activity, he may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief investigatory

stop of the person. 392 U.S. at 30–31. Such a stop must be “justified at its inception”

and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in

the first place.” Id. at 20. During the stop, the officer may make “reasonable inquiries”
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 10

of the person and conduct a pat-down search to check for weapons. Id. “Reasonable

inquiries” include, for example, questions about a person’s identity. Hiibel v. Sixth

Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004); see also

United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985) (observing that if police have a

reasonable suspicion that a person they encounter was involved in connection with a

completed felony, then they may conduct a Terry stop to “ask questions[] or check

identification”); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985) (“[I]f there are articulable

facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense,

that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain

him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information.”); Adams v. Williams,

407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (observing that, pursuant to Terry, an officer may make “[a]

brief stop of a suspicious individual[] in order to determine his identity or to maintain

the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information”).

In Berkemer v. McCarty, the Supreme Court recognized that an individual may

be detained, but nonetheless may not be “in custody” for purposes of Miranda. 468 U.S.

420, 337–39 (1984) (holding that roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant

to a routine traffic stop does not constitute “custodial interrogation” for purposes of

Miranda). The Court remarked on “the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that

Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda.” Id. at 440. It noted, by way of

explanation, the “comparatively nonthreatening character” of such detentions. Id. The

Court explained that although “the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of

questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or

dispelling the officer’s suspicions . . . the detainee is not obliged to respond . . . [a]nd,

unless the detainee’s answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he

must then be released.” Id. at 339–40 (footnotes omitted).

The Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that Knable questioned Loza pursuant

to a lawful Terry stop and, consequently, that Knable was not required to provide Loza

with his Miranda rights was not unreasonable. The court noted that Knable had a

reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot based on the letter
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 11

1

Because we conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision that Knable questioned Loza

pursuant to a lawful Terry stop was not unreasonable, we do not address Loza’s argument that Knable’s

questions did not fall under the exception to Miranda for “routine booking questions.” See Pennsylvania

v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 (1990) (exempting from Miranda’s coverage “questions to secure the

biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services”) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

found in Hoertt’s trash bin regarding a drive-by shooting. Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1097.

He also had reason to suspect that Loza, whom Hoett identified as the man who put the

items in the trash bin, may have been involved. Id. In light of these facts, it was not

unreasonable for the court to conclude that Knable, pursuant to Terry, permissibly

approached Loza, patted him down, and asked him for his name and the name of his

companion.

Loza argues that Knable’s encounter with him was more coercive than a typical

Terry stop. He notes that Knable was holding his firearm when he approached Loza and

that he handcuffed Loza and placed him in the back of his patrol car. Courts and

commentators have recognized that the line between investigatory stops governed by

Terry—particularly those that are more intrusive—and custodial interrogations subject

to Miranda is, at times, unclear. See, e.g., Cruz v. Miller, 255 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir. 2001)

(“[T]he [Supreme] Court has not explicitly considered what circumstances of a Terry

stop would constitute ‘custody’ requiring Miranda warnings.”); Michael J. Roth,

Berkemer Revisited: Uncovering the Middle Ground Between Miranda and the New

Terry, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2779, 2779 (April 2009) (observing that the courts are

divided as to whether Miranda applies during a valid, but intrusive Terry stop).

However, to the extent that the law is not clearly established, the Ohio Supreme Court’s

decision was not unreasonable.1

For these reasons, Loza is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground.

IV.

Next, Loza argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision upholding the

voluntariness and admissibility of his confession was based on an unreasonable
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 12

determination of the facts and was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly

established federal law.

After Dorothy Jackson implicated Loza in her family members’ killings and

police discovered the victims, Detectives Knable and Jeffery questioned Loza at the

detention center where he was being held. At the beginning of the interview, which was

videotaped, Loza waived his Miranda rights. After about an hour of questioning, Loza

confessed to the killings. The trial court denied Loza’s motion to suppress his

confession, and the video of his confession was played at trial. The Ohio Supreme Court

held that Loza’s confession was voluntary and properly admitted.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State

shall “deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S.

Const. amend. XIV. “[C]ertain interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as applied

to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system

of justice that they must be condemned under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.” Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109 (1985). In order to determine

whether a confession was voluntarily made, a court must evaluate the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the interrogation to determine whether the defendant’s “will

[was] overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.”

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225–26 (1973). “[C]oercive police activity

is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary.’” Colorado

v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986). “[C]oercion can be mental as well as physical.”

Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960). In addition to “the crucial element of

police coercion,” courts consider “the length of the interrogation, its location, its

continuity, the defendant’s maturity, education, physical condition, and mental health”

and the failure of police to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights. Withrow v.

Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 693–94 (1993) (internal citations omitted); see also Schneckloth,

412 U.S. at 226 (discussing factors). If a defendant has been advised of his Miranda

rights and voluntarily waived them, it will be difficult to claim that his confession was

nonetheless involuntary. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 609 (2004) (plurality
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 13

opinion) (noting that “maintaining that a statement is involuntary even though given

after warnings and voluntary waiver of rights requires unusual stamina”); see also

Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 433 n.20 (“[C]ases in which a defendant can make a colorable

argument that a self-incriminating statement was ‘compelled’ despite the fact that the

law enforcement authorities adhered to the dictates of Miranda are rare.”).

The Ohio Supreme Court examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding

Loza’s confession and upheld the trial court’s denial of Loza’s suppression motion,

reasoning, in part:

[W]e concur in the trial court’s finding that the appellant’s statements

were voluntarily made and that the appellant’s will to resist was not

overborne by threats or improper inducements. Appellant was of

majority age and was in command of his faculties at the time he

confessed. He was not interrogated for an unreasonable length of time,

and was not subjected to physical abuse or harsh conditions. We note

that before the interrogation began, appellant waived his Miranda rights.

Upon completion of the interrogation, when the detectives asked

appellant if he felt threatened by them or if they had made any promises

to him, appellant responded that “no,” they had not threatened him, and

agreed they had not made any promises to him. Through these

affirmations, appellant has confirmed that his confession was voluntarily

made.

Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1095.

Loza first argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts. He contends that the court’s conclusion that

“[n]o threats were made [during the interrogation] concerning [Dorothy] Jackson or what

would happen if appellant did not confess,” Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1094, is contrary to the

record.

Loza argues that Detectives Knable and Jeffery threatened Dorothy Jackson and

Loza’s unborn baby to coerce Loza into confessing. For example, the detectives asked

Loza if he “want[ed] Dorothy to have her baby in a penitentiary” or if he wanted “[his]

baby to be put up for adoption to somebody you’ve never heard of” and told Loza that

“[t]hat’s what’s going to happen.” At one point, the detectives implied that Loza was
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 14

not telling the truth and Knable said, “What you’re trying to do is put yourself in an

electric chair or a gas chamber right along with Dorothy, and this child is going to go off

into never, never land and never be seen again.” Loza argues that he interpreted this

statement to mean that if he did not confess, Dorothy Jackson would be prosecuted, and

both she and Loza’s unborn child would be sent to the electric chair.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Loza’s argument that these statements

constituted threats, reasoning: 

The detectives’ references to Jackson were made in response to

appellant’s repeated inquiries about what would happen to her. No

threats were made concerning Jackson or what would happen if appellant

did not confess. The detectives merely informed appellant of the

possible consequences of his actions. By the time the detectives were

questioning appellant, Jackson had already told the police about

appellant’s involvement in the murders. Appellant sought the release of

Jackson and he initiated the bargaining for her release. Under these

circumstances, the statements made to the detectives were voluntary

beyond doubt.

Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1094 (citations omitted).

After reviewing the video recording and transcript of Loza’s interrogation, we

conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that the detectives did not

threaten Dorothy Jackson or Loza’s unborn child was not unreasonable. The record

supports the court’s conclusion that “detectives merely informed appellant of the

possible consequences of his actions” when they told Loza that both he and Dorothy

Jackson could be imprisoned for their involvement in the killings. Id. It is unclear what

Knable meant when he said that their child would go “into never, never land.” However,

it was not unreasonable for the court to characterize Knable’s statement as an assessment

of the possible consequences of Loza’s actions, albeit phrased in hyperbolic terms. As

the court noted, most of the detectives’ references to Jackson during the interrogation

were in response to Loza’s questions about what would happen if Jackson were charged

and prosecuted. Viewed in context, the detectives’ comments do not appear to be

threats. Even if we believed that some statements could be characterized as threats, our
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 15

2

Loza does not argue that his waiver was involuntary.

mere disagreement is not enough to supersede the Ohio Supreme Court’s factual

determination on habeas review. See Rice, 546 U.S. at 341–42. 

Next, Loza argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that his

confession was voluntary is contrary to Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959), and

Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (1963), two pre-Miranda cases in which the Supreme

Court reversed defendants’ convictions based on involuntary confessions. In Spano,

several officials questioned the defendant, a 25-year-old immigrant with only a half-year

of high school education and a history of emotional instability, “for virtually eight

straight hours before he confessed” to a killing. 360 U.S. at 322. During the

interrogation, police asked a “fledgling police officer” and close friend of the defendant

to falsely tell the defendant that the officer could lose his job, leaving him unable to

provide for his pregnant wife and three children. Id. at 317–19. The Court concluded

that the defendant’s “will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue and sympathy

falsely aroused.” Id. at 323. In Lynumn, the defendant confessed to unlawful possession

and sale of marijuana after officers told her that she would be sent to jail, her state

financial aid would be cut off, and her children would be taken away. 372 U.S. at 533.

The threats were made while the defendant was “encircled in her apartment by three

police officers” and another man, a twice-convicted felon, who had “purportedly ‘set her

up.’” Id. at 534. The defendant had no previous experience with criminal law and “no

reason not to believe that the police had ample power to carry out their threats.” Id.

Thus, the Court concluded that the defendant’s will was overborne. Id.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that Loza’s confession was voluntary

is not contrary to Spano and Lynumn. Loza suggests that the facts of his case are

“materially indistinguishable,” Williams, 529 U.S. at 405–06, from the facts of these

cases, but this is incorrect. First—and most importantly— Spano and Lynumn pre-dated

Miranda. Unlike the defendants in these cases, Loza was read his Miranda rights and

voluntarily waived them,2

 making it very difficult for him to demonstrate that his

confession was nonetheless involuntary. See Seibert, 542 U.S. at 609; Berkemer,
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 16

486 U.S. at 433 n.20. Second, other circumstances of Loza’s interrogation distinguish

it from the interrogations in Spano and Lynumn, including Loza’s age, education level,

the length of his interrogation, the environment in which he was interrogated, and the

statements detectives made to him. Even if individual facts are similar, the “totality of

the circumstances” in Loza’s case is not the same. Thus, Loza’s case was not so

indistinguishable from these cases that the Ohio Supreme Court was required to arrive

at the same result.

Loza argues that, as in Spano and Lynumn, his interrogators made threats about

what would happen to other people if he did not confess. However, as previously

discussed, the Ohio Supreme Court’s factual determination that the detectives’

statements were not threats was not unreasonable. Loza argues that, like the defendants

in Spano and Lynumn, detectives lied to him when they falsely told him that they had

spoken with Jerri Jackson, who was alive but unresponsive when police arrived at the

Dorothy Jackson’s family home. However, this similarity does not compel a conclusion

that Loza’s confession was involuntary. The Court has subsequently clarified that

Miranda does not prohibit “mere strategic deception.” Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292,

297 (1990). “Ploys to mislead a suspect or lull him into a false sense of security that do

not rise to the level of compulsion or coercion to speak are not within Miranda’s

concerns.” Id.; see also Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969) (holding that police

misrepresentation of facts, while relevant, was insufficient to render an otherwise

voluntary confession inadmissible). Loza also argues that detectives lied to him by

promising that he would get to see Dorothy Jackson and that they would testify on his

behalf if he confessed. However, the record does not support Loza’s assertion that the

detectives lied about these issues. The Ohio Supreme Court reasonably concluded that,

although the detectives said they would try to make arrangements for Loza to see

Dorothy Jackson, they explicitly said that they could not promise that a meeting would

occur. It also reasonably concluded that the detectives did not promise to testify on

Loza’s behalf or make any promises regarding the treatment he would receive from the

court.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 17

3

Loza’s counsel did not explicitly state whether Fisher’s testimony was relevant to the

voluntariness of Loza’s confession or to its credibility.

For these reasons, the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was not based on an

unreasonable factual determination. Nor was it contrary to or an unreasonable

application of clearly established federal law. Loza is not entitled to habeas relief on

this ground.

V.

Loza argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision upholding the trial court’s

exclusion of the testimony of Dr. Roger Fisher, a clinical psychologist, at the guilt phase

of trial was contrary to and an unreasonable application of Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.

683 (1986). In Crane, the Supreme Court held that the “blanket exclusion” of evidence

concerning the circumstances of the defendant’s confession on the ground that it related

only to voluntariness, not credibility, violated the defendant’s right to present a complete

defense. Id. at 690–91.

Loza sought to introduce testimony from Fisher at the guilt phase of trial to help

explain his confession.3 Loza’s counsel stated that he expected Fisher to testify that

“Loza’s acknowledgment of his participation in the offense and his desire to take full

responsibility would have been [the] product of psychological coercion and duress

brought upon by the statements of the police officer that his girlfriend would be placed

in the electric chair and this child would be sent to never-never land.” He said that he

expected Fisher to testify that Loza’s “letters and repeated affirmations of [his

confession] would have been consistent with Mr. Loza’s coerced desire to protect his

girlfriend and unborn child.” The trial court prohibited Loza’s counsel from introducing

Fisher’s testimony at the guilt phase of trial because it had already determined Loza’s

confession to be voluntary. However, it permitted Fisher to testify at the mitigation

phase, after the jury had found Loza guilty. Fisher testified that Loza’s father abandoned

his family when he was five years old, which had a “very drastic” impact on Loza.

Fisher testified that when Loza met Dorothy Jackson, she “became the most important

thing in Jose Loza’s life.” Fisher explained that Loza saw Dorothy Jackson as “a chance
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 18

to recover all that he had missed as a much younger, much more helpless child” and “to

have his own family set up on his own terms which nobody could take away from him.”

Fisher opined, based on his viewing of Loza’s confession, that Loza appeared to be

“trying to take a lot of pressure to himself and avoid problems for his girlfriend.” He

stated that, in his opinion, Loza would have lied to protect Dorothy Jackson and that he

would have done anything necessary to protect his unborn child. The Ohio Supreme

Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude Fisher’s testimony at the guilt phase.

“Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation [C]lauses of the Sixth

Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity

to present a complete defense.” Crane, 476 U.S. at 690 (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted); see also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973)

(observing that this opportunity includes “[t]he rights to confront and cross-examine

witnesses and to call witnesses in one’s own behalf”); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14,

19 (1967) (stating that this opportunity includes “[t]he right to offer the testimony of

witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary . . . [and] the right to present the

defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide

where the truth lies”). 

However, “[a] defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited.”

United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998). “[S]tate and federal rulemakers

have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from

criminal trials.” Id. A defendant’s right to present a complete defense is only violated

“by evidence rules that infring[e] upon a weighty interest of the accused and are arbitrary

or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” Holmes v. South

Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);

Scheffer, 523 U.S. at 308; Alley v. Bell, 307 F.3d 380, 394 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[A]

defendant’s due process rights are violated when a state court excludes important

evidence on the basis of an arbitrary, mechanistic, or per se rule, or one that is

disproportionate to the purposes it is designed to serve.”).
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 19

The Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional several “arbitrary” rules—that

is, “rules that excluded important defense evidence but that did not serve any legitimate

interests.” Holmes, 547 U.S. at 325. For example, in Washington, the Court held that

the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a state procedural statute

barring co-participants in a crime from testifying on one another’s behalf barred his

accomplice’s testimony that he had committed the crime with which Washington was

charged. 388 U.S. at 16–17. The Court observed that the rule “[could not] even be

defended on the ground that it rationally sets apart a group of persons who are

particularly likely to commit perjury,” because the rule permitted co-participants to

testify in situations where the incentive to commit perjury was even greater than the

situations in which they were banned. Id. at 22. In Chambers, the defendant called as

a witness a man who had previously confessed to the murder with which Chambers was

charged. 410 U.S. at 291. The man repudiated his confession on the stand, but

Chambers was prohibited from examining him as an adverse witness or presenting

witnesses who would have discredited his repudiation due to the state’s “voucher” rule,

which prohibited a party from impeaching his own witness. Id. at 291–92, 294–95. The

Court noted that the State could not “defend . . . or explain” the rationale behind the

“voucher” rule and held that “under the facts and circumstances of [the] case,” the rule

violated Chambers’ due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 297,

303. See also Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44,61 (1978) (holding unconstitutional a per

se rule prohibiting hypnotically refreshed testimony because the evidence constituted “an

arbitrary restriction on the [defendant’s] right to testify in the absence of clear evidence

by the State repudiating the validity of all posthypnosis recollections”). 

Crane, the case on which Loza relies, is another example of the Court’s rejection

of an arbitrary rule. See Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326; Alley, 307 F.3d at 395. The defendant

in Crane confessed to shooting and killing a liquor store clerk. 476 U.S. at 684. Prior

to trial, Crane moved to suppress his confession on the ground that it was impermissibly

coerced. Id. at 684–85. At the suppression hearing, Crane, who was sixteen years old

at the time he was interrogated, testified that he was detained in a windowless room for

a long period of time, that he was surrounded by as many as six police officers, that he
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 20

was repeatedly denied permission to call his mother, and that he was “badgered” into

making a false confession. Id. at 685. The trial court found that Crane’s confession was

voluntary and denied the motion. Id. At trial, the prosecution moved in limine to

prevent the defense counsel from introducing any testimony regarding the circumstances

in which the confession was obtained. Id. at 685–86. Defense counsel argued that she

did not intend to relitigate the issue of voluntariness by introducing evidence about the

“physical and psychological environment in which the confession was obtained,” but

sought “only to demonstrate that the circumstances of the confession cast doubt on its

validity and its credibility.” Id. at 684, 686 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). The trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion. Id. at 686.

The Supreme Court held that “the blanket exclusion of the proffered testimony

about the circumstances of petitioner’s confession deprived him of a fair trial.” Id. at

690. The Court noted that the trial court’s ruling rested on the mistaken assumption that

“evidence bearing on the voluntariness of a confession and evidence bearing on its

credibility fall in conceptually distinct and mutually exclusive categories.” Id. at 687.

The Court emphasized that “‘evidence surrounding the making of a confession bears on

its credibility’ as well as its voluntariness.” Id. at 688 (quoting Jackson v. Denno,

378 U.S. 368, 386 n.13 (1964)). Thus, “regardless of whether the defendant marshaled

the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely

independent of any question of voluntariness,” a defendant may introduce the same

evidence at trial “to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was

obtained casts doubt on its credibility.” Id. at 689. The Court acknowledged that judges

have “wide latitude” to exclude evidence that is repetitive, marginally relevant, or poses

an undue risk of harassment, prejudice or confusion. Id. at 689–90. It also

acknowledged the power of states to exclude evidence through the application of

evidentiary rules that “serve the interests of fairness and reliability.” Id. at 690.

However, the Court noted that “neither the Supreme Court of Kentucky in its opinion,

nor respondent in its argument to this Court, has advanced any rational justification for

the wholesale exclusion of this body of potentially exculpatory evidence.” Id. at 691.

Therefore, the Court reversed Crane’s conviction. Id. at 692.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 21

The Supreme Court later remarked that Crane did “not set[] forth an absolute

entitlement to introduce crucial, relevant evidence” at a criminal trial. Montana v.

Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 53 (1996) (plurality opinion). It explained:

Our holding that the exclusion of certain evidence in that case violated

the defendant’s constitutional rights rested not on a theory that all

competent, reliable evidence must be admitted, but rather on the ground

that the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s sole rationale for the exclusion

(that the evidence did not relate to the credibility of the confession) was

wrong. Crane does nothing to undermine the principle that the

introduction of relevant evidence can be limited by the State for a valid

reason . . . .

Id. 

Loza argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision upholding the exclusion of

Fisher’s testimony was contrary to and an unreasonable application of Crane. The Ohio

Supreme Court reasoned:

The testimony of Dr. Fisher is clearly outside the holding of

Crane. The testimony of the witnesses in Crane related to how the

physical and psychological environment of the interrogation could have

impacted the voluntariness and credibility of the confession. Dr. Fisher’s

proffered testimony relates to how Loza’s individual, psychological

makeup, independent of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation,

could have impacted the voluntariness and credibility of the confession.

Consequently, Crane does not require the admission of Dr. Fisher’s

testimony.

The jury was able to accurately consider the credibility and

weight of the confession by watching it on videotape. They could see

and hear the tone and manner of the interrogation, the number of officers

present, the physical characteristics of the room, and the length of the

interrogation. The jury had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of

the appellant and to give the confession its appropriate probative weight.

Because the trial court already had ruled on the voluntariness of the

confession and the jury had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of

the confession, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding

the testimony of Dr. Fisher during the guilt phase of the trial.

Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1094 (citations omitted).
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 22

4

Nonetheless, the Ohio Supreme Court’s mention of voluntariness in its discussion is

understandable. At trial, Loza’s counsel said that Fisher would testify that Loza’s confession was the

“product of psychological coercion and duress,” language that suggests Loza’s counsel intended to dispute

the voluntariness of Loza’s confession, not its credibility. The Ohio Supreme Court perhaps believed it

should reiterate that Fisher’s testimony could not have been introduced to contest voluntariness at trial.

As an initial matter, we observe that the Ohio Supreme Court’s reasoning is

somewhat flawed. First, the Ohio Supreme Court implied that evidence of a defendant’s

mental state is not relevant to the credibility of a defendant’s confession. This is not the

case. The Court in Crane noted that the improperly excluded testimony concerned “the

physical and psychological environment in which [Crane’s] confession was obtained.”

476 U.S. at 684. Crane provides no basis for distinguishing between evidence

concerning external factors (such as the time and place at which a defendant was

interrogated) and internal factors (such as a defendant’s unique psychological

characteristics) that bear on the credibility of a confession. Just as a defendant’s

personal characteristics are relevant to determining the voluntariness of a confession,

see, e.g., Blackburn, 361 U.S. at 206, so too are they relevant to the credibility of a

confession. Next, the Ohio Supreme Court cited the fact that “the trial court already had

ruled on the voluntariness of [Loza’s] confession” as a valid reason for excluding

Fisher’s testimony at the guilt phase of trial. Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1094. Crane explicitly

states that “the circumstances surrounding the taking of a confession can be highly

relevant to two separate inquiries, one legal [voluntariness] and one factual

[credibility].” Crane, 476 U.S. at 688. Thus, the fact that the trial court had ruled on the

voluntariness of Loza’s confession did not provide a basis for excluding Fisher’s

testimony, to the extent that it was relevant to credibility.4

Nonetheless, the fact that aspects of the Ohio Supreme Court’s reasoning were

flawed does not mean that the court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable

application of clearly established federal law. 

A state-court decision is “contrary to” our clearly established precedents

if it “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our

cases” or it if confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable

from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different

from our precedent.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405–06 (2000).
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 23

Avoiding these pitfalls does not require citation of our cases—indeed, it

does not even require awareness or our cases, so long as neither the

reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.

Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2003). “[O]ur focus on the ‘unreasonable application’

test under Section 2254(d) should be on the ultimate legal conclusion that the state court

reached.” Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 246 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (per curiam); see

also Hurtado v. Tucker, 245 F.3d 7, 20 (1st Cir. 2001) (“The ultimate question on habeas

. . . is not how well reasoned the state court decision is, but whether the outcome is

reasonable . . . . [E]ven a poorly reasoned state opinion does not mean that the outcome

represents an unreasonable application.”); Hennon v. Cooper, 109 F.3d 330, 335 (7th

Cir. 1997) (“It doesn’t follow that the criterion of a reasonable determination is whether

it is well reasoned. It is not. It is whether the determination is at least minimally

consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.”).

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision that Fisher’s testimony was properly

excluded was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established

federal law. The “clearly established Federal law,” § 2254(d)(1), at issue is that a

defendant’s right to present a complete defense is violated “when a state court excludes

important evidence on the basis of an arbitrary, mechanistic, or per se rule, or one that

is disproportionate to the purposes it is designed to serve.” Alley, 307 F.3d at 394; see

also Holmes, 547 U.S. at 324; Scheffer, 523 U.S. at 308. Crane presents one such

arbitrary rule: a “blanket exclusion” of testimony about the circumstances of a

defendant’s confession on the ground that it is related to voluntariness, not credibility.

See Crane, 476 U.S. at 690. Crane does not stand for the proposition that all crucial,

relevant evidence must be admitted, but only that it must not be excluded solely on the

basis of this rule. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 53.

The Ohio Supreme Court did not apply a “mechanistic, per se” rule that evidence

concerning the circumstances of Loza’s confession had to be excluded because it related

to voluntariness, not credibility. Alley, 307 F.3d at 394. Rather, it “made an individual

determination [that Fisher’s testimony was properly excluded] . . . based on the facts

specific to [Loza’s] case.” Id. Specifically, after referring to Crane, it clearly and in
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 24

5

The district court observed that the Ohio Supreme Court could have held that the trial court

properly excluded Fisher’s testimony under Ohio’s rules of evidence, which prohibit expert witnesses from

offering opinions as to the truthfulness of a witness’s statement. Loza v. Mitchell, 705 F.Supp.2d 773, 791

(S.D. Ohio 2010) (citing State v. Boston, 545 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio 1989), overruled on other grounds by

State v. Dever, 596 N.E.2d 426 (Ohio 1992)). The parties dispute whether Fisher’s testimony could have

been excluded on this basis. We decline to consider this issue, which is not necessary to resolve the

question before us.

detail noted the evidence in the record other than Dr. Fisher’s testimony pertaining to

credibility. The Ohio Supreme Court noted that the trial court had determined Loza’s

confession to be voluntary, but it also observed that Loza was permitted to present other

evidence bearing on the credibility of his confession. It stated that the jury had the

opportunity to view the videotape of Loza’s confession, observe the “tone and manner

of the interrogation, the number of officers present, the physical characteristics of the

room, and the length of the interrogation.” Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1094. Thus, it “had the

opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the appellant and to give the confession its

appropriate probative weight.” Id. Loza argues that Fisher’s testimony would have

provided the jury with additional evidence about Loza’s psychological characteristics

that would have helped it weigh the credibility of his confession. Although this may be

true, the Ohio Supreme Court reasonably concluded that Crane did not require this

evidence to be admitted.5

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision is properly characterized as a determination

that, given the ample evidence going to credibility, the Crane rule did not require Dr.

Fisher’s testimony, a rule embodying the principle that “the introduction of relevant

evidence can be limited by the state for a valid reason.” Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 53. In

short, the Ohio Supreme Court did not exclude Dr. Fisher’s testimony arbitrarily. Thus,

the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application

of Crane, and Loza is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground. 

VI.

Loza argues that the Ohio Court of Appeals’s decision that Loza’s trial counsel

was not ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present evidence regarding

Loza’s cultural background and family history was based on an unreasonable
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 25

determination of the facts and was an unreasonable application of Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which sets forth the standard assessing ineffective

assistance claims.

Prior to trial, Loza’s trial counsel requested funds to travel to Los Angeles to

investigate Loza’s background and family history. Loza’s trial counsel stated their intent

to review Loza’s medical, educational, juvenile court, and employment records, in

addition to speaking with Loza’s family, priest, neighbors, police officers, and others.

Loza’s trial counsel also requested funds to hire a mitigation specialist to investigate

Loza’s case. The trial court granted both motions. 

At the guilt phase of trial, Loza’s trial counsel attempted to introduce the

testimony of Fisher, the clinical psychologist, in order to explain the psychological

characteristics that would have influenced Loza’s confession. The court excluded this

testimony. At the mitigation phase of trial, Fisher testified about Loza’s abandonment

by his father and his experience living with his sister in Mexico until they could join

their mother, who was working to support them in the United States. Fisher described

the racism and violence that Loza encountered in Los Angeles and his loose affiliation

with gangs. Fisher also explained some of the psychological factors underlying Loza’s

relationship with Dorothy Jackson, including his strong desire to have his own family.

Fisher opined that Loza’s confession was consistent with Loza’s desire to protect

Dorothy Jackson and his tendency to “switch into that super-mach, super grown-up,

super-tough guy persona where he takes all the blame.” 

Loza’s trial counsel also presented testimony from several of Loza’s family

members at the mitigation phase of trial. Beatriz Loza, Loza’s mother, said that after

Loza’s father left her for another woman, she went to the United States to find work and

paid a smuggler to bring her children into the United States. She said that as a child,

Loza was picked on because he was perceived to be different. Viviana Loza, Loza’s

sister, described Loza’s anger at their father and Loza’s desire to have a big family so

that he could pass his name on to his children and restore the family name. Viviana

Loza said that her mother instilled in them the importance of sticking by one’s family.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 26

6

Loza’s mother and sister share the same name.

Finally, Samantha Ceja, Loza’s seven-year-old half-sister, testified that Loza was her

favorite brother and that he gave her a pet rabbit and dolls before he left Los Angeles.

In Loza’s petition for post-conviction relief in state court, Loza argued that his

trial counsel was ineffective. He argued that his trial counsel failed to consult a cultural

expert who could have testified regarding the cultural factors influencing Loza’s

confession and provided the jury with information on Mexican culture that could have

helped it contextualize mitigation evidence from Loza’s family. Loza supported this

claim with affidavits from his trial counsel stating that they did not contact the Mexican

consulate in connection with Loza’s case because they had never worked with a Mexican

client. Loza presented an affidavit from Susan Keefe, a professor of anthropology,

opining that “[i]t would be consistent with Mr. Loza’s Mexican values” to confess to the

killings in order to protect his girlfriend and baby and that “[a] real Mexican man would

respond to threats against his family, protect his family at all costs, and stand his ground

in the most difficult circumstances.” He also presented the affidavit of Julia Hawood,

a clinical psychologist, who explained how machismo, “the cultural concept of Mexican

manliness,” influenced Loza.

Loza also argued that his trial counsel failed to present additional mitigating

evidence from Loza’s family. He presented affidavits from his mother, Viviana Loza,

and family members who did not testify at trial—his grandmother, Emma Rodes; his

sister, Beatriz Loza6

; and his brother, Jesus Loza. Loza’s mother’s affidavit contained

more information about Loza’s past. She explained that he was beaten by teachers and

children at his school in Mexico, that he was a sickly child, and that Dorothy Jackson

previously became pregnant by Loza but miscarried the baby. Viviana Loza also stated

that Loza was picked on in school in Mexico and the United States, that he was a sickly

child, and that he was slow in learning to speak. Rodes, who was Loza’s primary

caretaker when he was a child, stated that Loza had asthma and bronchitis as a child and

that he was beaten by his mother’s boyfriend. Rodes said that in high school, Loza once

“took all the blame” for friends who were caught stealing stereos. Finally, Jesus Loza’s
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 27

affidavit stated that Loza was once attacked by members of a gang that he refused to join

and that he later affiliated with a different gang, one that “did not engage in drive-by

shootings,” strictly “for social purposes.”

The Butler County Court of Common Pleas denied Loza’s petition for relief, and

the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed.

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the

Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend VI. The Sixth Amendment

right to counsel is “the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” McMann v.

Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14 (1970). In order to demonstrate ineffective

assistance of counsel, a defendant must make two showings: deficient performance and

prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. 

First, the defendant must demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was

deficient. Id. He must do so by showing that “counsel’s representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 687–88. The Supreme Court has “declined

to articulate specific guidelines for appropriate attorney conduct and instead [has]

emphasized that ‘[t]he proper measure of attorney performance remains simply

reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.’” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510,

521 (2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). 

“A counsel’s failure to make a reasonable investigation of a defendant’s

psychiatric history and family background, and to present mitigating evidence to the jury

at sentencing, can constitute ineffective assistance.” Clark v. Mitchell, 425 F.3d 270,

284 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 522–23.). “[C]ounsel has a duty to

make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular

investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. “Strategic choices made after

thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually

unchallengeable.” Id. at 690. “[S]trategic choices made after less than complete

investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional

judgments support the limitations on investigation.” Id. at 690–91. “In assessing

whether a defendant’s counsel was ineffective at [a] mitigation hearing for failing to
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 28

introduce certain evidence, the focus must be on whether the investigation supporting

counsel’s decision not to introduce mitigating evidence of the defendant’s background

was itself reasonable.” Clark, 425 F.3d at 284 (citing Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 523). “In

assessing the reasonableness of an attorney’s investigation . . . a court must consider not

only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel, but also whether the known

evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further.” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at

527.

Second, the defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s deficient performance

prejudiced his defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. “This requires showing that

counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose

result is reliable.” Id. “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have

been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine

confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694. “When a defendant challenges a conviction, the

question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder

would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.” Id. at 695. When a defendant

challenges a death sentence, “the question is whether there is a reasonable probability

that, absent the errors, the sentencer . . . would have concluded that the balance of

aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Id.

Establishing that a state court’s application of Strickland is unreasonable under

§ 2254(d) is a “difficult” task. Harrington, 131 S.Ct. at 788.

The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly

deferential, and when the two apply in tandem, review is doubly so. The

Strickland standard is a general one, so the range of reasonable

applications is substantial. Federal habeas courts must guard against the

danger of equating unreasonableness under Strickland with

unreasonableness under § 2254(d). When § 2254(d) applies, the question

is not whether counsel’s actions were reasonable. The question is

whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied

Strickland’s deferential standard.

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 29

The Ohio Court of Appeals concluded with respect to Loza’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claim:

The record contains evidence that Loza’s trial counsel offered

evidence that Loza confessed to “protect” Jackson and his unborn child

during the guilt and mitigation phases of Loza’s trial. During the guilt

phase of the trial, Loza’s trial counsel sought to introduce the testimony

of Dr. Roger Fisher, a clinical psychologist. The proffered testimony

was that Loza confessed because “his background, psychological

makeup, and his personal code of conduct required that he not snitch and

that he protect Dorothy.” The trial court excluded this testimony during

the guilt phase of the trial and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld this ruling

on direct appeal. However, Dr. Fisher’s testimony was allowed during

the mitigation phase of the trial. Since Keefe’s “cultural evidence” is

merely cumulative of or alternative to Dr. Fisher’s testimony, Loza has

failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, Loza argues

that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating

evidence from Loza’s family. In support of this argument, Loza

submitted affidavits from his grandmother, sister, and brother. However,

the record reveals that Loza’s mother and two of his other sisters testified

about Loza’s family history and general character during the mitigation

phase of his trial. Since the affidavits submitted by Loza are merely

cumulative to the evidence presented at trial, he has failed to establish

ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Loza’s claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit, and his second

assignment of error is overruled.

Loza, 1997 WL 634348, at *4 (citations omitted).

Loza argues that the Ohio Court of Appeals’s decision was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts. First, he contends that the court erred by

concluding that the testimony provided by Fisher, a psychologist, was similar to

testimony that would have been offered by a cultural expert such as Keefe. This factual

determination was not unreasonable. At the mitigation phase of Loza’s trial, Fisher

testified about Loza’s difficult childhood and its effect on Loza’s outlook. Keefe’s

affidavit discussed largely the same facts, but from a slightly different angle. Keefe

explained Loza’s actions as a product of his cultural heritage, while Fisher attributed

them to Loza’s psychological make-up. For example, Keefe opined that Loza confessed

to protect Dorothy Jackson and his unborn baby, consistent with his image of “[a] real
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 30

Mexican man.” Fisher said essentially the same thing, testifying that Loza’s confession

was consistent with his desire to protect Dorothy Jackson and his tendency to “switch

into that super-mach, super grown-up, super-tough guy persona where he takes all the

blame.” In light of this and other similarities, the court’s factual determination was not

unreasonable. Second, Loza argues that the court failed to consider the affidavits of

Hawood and Loza’s trial counsel. But the fact that the Ohio Court of Appeals did not

mention these pieces of evidence in its opinion does not mean that it did not consider

them. Nothing in the court’s opinion suggests that it failed to do so. Loza cannot

demonstrate that the court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the

facts.

Next, Loza argues that Ohio Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland

because it failed to identify and analyze its requirements for proving an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim. However, “a state court need not cite or even be aware of

[the Supreme Court’s] cases” as long as its decision is not contrary to or an unreasonable

application of clearly established federal law. Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 784; Early,

537 U.S. at 8. The fact that the court’s analysis was less than explicit does not mean that

its decision was unreasonable.

Finally, Loza argues that the Ohio Court of Appeals unreasonably concluded that

Loza’s failure to present additional evidence from a cultural expert and Loza’s family

members at the mitigation phase of trial was not deficient and did not prejudice Loza

because the evidence was cumulative. “Our cases reject a requirement that any

later-identified cumulative mitigating evidence must have been introduced in order for

counsel to be effective.” Clark, 425 F.3d at 286 (holding that counsel was not deficient

for failing to present additional evidence regarding petitioner’s family history); see also

Smith v. Mitchell, 348 F.3d 177, 200 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that counsel was not

deficient and that petitioner was not prejudiced because “virtually all of the mitigating

elements that [petitioner] complains of” were presented). “[I]n order to establish

prejudice, the new evidence that a habeas petitioner presents must differ in a substantial

way—in strength and subject matter—from the evidence actually presented at
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 31

sentencing.” Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d 308, 319 (6th Cir. 2005). Here, as in Hill, the

evidence Loza contends should have been presented “resembles the evidence the jury

did have before it in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors.” Id. The

testimony of Keefe and Hawood resembles Fisher’s testimony that Loza confessed to

protect his girlfriend and unborn baby, consistent with his idea of manhood and personal

code of conduct. The testimony of Rodes, Beatriz Loza, and Jesus Loza resembles the

testimony of Loza’s mother, Viviana Loza, and Ceja that Loza suffered hardships as a

child, was taunted and abused, and valued family, of which he was protective. “Nothing

in this new testimony suggests that it would have stood out to the jury in such a way as

to change the calculation the jury previously made when weighing the aggravating and

mitigating circumstances of the murder[s].” Hill, 400 F.3d at 319. 

For these reasons, the Ohio Court of Appeals’s decision that Loza’s trial counsel

was not ineffective was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts or an

unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Loza is not entitled to

habeas relief on this ground.

VII.

Loza argues that the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly

established federal law when it held that the trial court’s charge to the jury did not coerce

the jury’s verdict.

On the third day of deliberations, the jury submitted a question to the court: “To

whom it may concern[:] We the jury would like to have clarified, how to decide a verdict

on a specification to a count when a unanimous decision cannot be reached? The jury

instructions have not made this clear to us.” The trial court issued the following

supplemental instruction and charge:

Again, a word of caution, ladies and gentlemen. After you’ve

commenced your deliberations, it’s important that the Court chooses its

words carefully and that you refrain from any remarks that may affect the

rights of either party to this action or which may disclose your opinion

as a member of the jury. We realize that this is a new and a difficult

assignment for you and the process of discussion and deliberation in the
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 32

jury room is necessarily slow and requires consideration and patience.

The secrecy which surrounds your efforts presents—prevents others,

including the Court, from knowing when your efforts will result in a

verdict. Now, I received the following note from the foreman, which

says, “We the jury would like to have clarified how to decide a verdict

on a specification to a count when a unanimous decision cannot be

reached. The jury instructions have not made this clear to us.”

The Court recognizes, ladies and gentlemen, the amount of time

that you have spent and you’ve diligently applied yourself to attempting

to resolve the numerous matters that are brought to your attention by way

of verdicts in this case, the verdict forms. And that you have—You

started your deliberations on Tuesday afternoon and here it is late

Thursday morning and you have deliberated some over sixteen and a half

hours, according to my calculations; and obviously there are still

problems here with arriving at a conclusion.

Now, with respect to this specific inquiry, if the jury is unable to

agree on a—to a verdict on a particular specification, as that is my

understanding of this note, and you have exhausted all reasonable efforts

to resolve your differences and you are convinced that further

deliberations on that specification would not serve a useful purpose, the

foreman shall note on the form, the verdict form, that particular

specification, that the jury is unable to agree on a verdict on that

specification, and sign the form as foreman. You will then proceed to the

next verdict form as instructed on the bottom of the form, which you’ve

just signed.

Now, I have some comments here that may be of some assistance.

The principal mode provided by our constitution and laws for deciding

questions of fact in criminal cases is by jury verdict. In a large

proportion of cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected.

Although the verdict must reflect the verdict of each individual juror and

not mere acquiescence in the conclusions of your fellows, each question

submitted to you should be examined with proper regard and deference

to the opinions of others. You should consider it desirable that this case

be decided. You’re selected in the same manner and from the same

source as any future jury would be. There’s no reason to believe that the

case will ever be submitted to a jury more capable, impartial or

intelligent than this one. Likewise, there’s no reason to believe that more

or clearer evidence will be produced by either side. It is your duty to

decide the case if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen to

one another’s arguments with a disposition to be persuaded. Do not

hesitate to reexamine your views and change your position if you are

convinced that it is erroneous. If there is disagreement, all jurors should

reexamine their positions given that a unanimous verdict has not been
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 33

reached. Jurors who favor a particular verdict should consider whether

their doubt is reasonable. Considering that it is not shared by others,

whether their doubt or conviction is reasonable, considering it’s not

shared by others equally honest, you’ve heard the same evidence with the

same desire to arrive at the truth and under the same oath. Likewise,

jurors for a different verdict should not—should ask themselves whether

they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment not

concurred in by all other jurors. Now, bearing in mind these admonitions

and these matters that we bring forth, I’m going to ask you now to return

and—or resume your deliberations.

The jury returned its verdict later that day.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Loza’s argument that the trial court erred by

giving the charge to the jury:

The supplemental charge that the trial court gave was previously

approved in State v. Howard [537 N.E.2d 188 (Ohio 1989)], paragraph

two of the syllabus.

After deliberating for a protracted period of time, the jury asked

for clarification on how to decide a specification if a unanimous verdict

could not be reached. The court advised the jury to exhaust all

reasonable efforts to reach a unanimous verdict, gave the Howard charge,

and told the foreman to note on the verdict any failure to reach a

unanimous verdict. After continuing its deliberations for several more

hours, the jury reached a unanimous verdict.

Because the trial court gave a supplemental instruction that was

previously approved by this court, appellant’s twenty-third proposition

of law is without merit.

Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1104.

As an initial matter, Loza argues that AEDPA’s deferential standard of review

does not apply to this claim. First, he contends that the Ohio Supreme Court decided his

claim on the basis of state law and, therefore, it did not adjudicate his federal claim “on

the merits” for purposes of § 2254(d). Loza is incorrect. The Ohio Supreme Court cited

its decision in Howard holding that the jury charge from Allen v. United States, 164 U.S.

492 (1896), is unduly coercive but approving another instruction, the Howard charge,

that “avoids the pitfalls of the traditional Allen charge.” Ohio v. Howard, 537 N.E.2d
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 34

188, 193 (Ohio 1989). The fact that the Ohio Supreme Court cited its previous decision

analyzing this constitutional issue, as opposed to reciting the analysis again, does not

mean that it decided this issue on the basis of state law. See Early, 537 U.S. at 8

(applying § 2254(d) to petitioner’s claim where the California Court of Appeals relied

on California Supreme Court decisions—which imposed even greater restrictions on jury

instructions than Allen—in the course of rejecting petitioner’s claim that the trial court’s

jury instructions were coercive). Second, Loza contends that the Ohio Supreme Court

failed to identify and explain controlling federal law. As previously discussed, “a state

court need not cite or even be aware of [the Supreme Court’s] cases” in order for

AEDPA deference to apply. Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 784; Early, 537 U.S. at 8. Thus,

the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision is entitled to deference under § 2254(d).

When a jury is deadlocked, a trial court may give a supplemental instruction

encouraging the jury to reach a verdict if possible. See Allen, 164 U.S. at 501–02. The

constitutionality of an “Allen” or “dynamite” charge turns on whether the charge is

coercive. See Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 237 (1988). In order to determine

whether a jury was coerced, “we consider the supplemental charge given by the trial

court ‘in its context and under all the circumstances.’” Id. at 237 (quoting Jenkins v.

United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965) (per curiam)). The Howard charge is “no more

coercive than the Allen charge.” Brown v. Bradshaw, 531 F.3d 433, 437 (6th Cir. 2008).

“As in Allen and Lowenfield, the [Howard charge] merely encourage[s] the jurors to

consider each other’s views and to ask themselves whether their own views [are]

reasonable under the circumstances.” Id.

Loza does not challenge the language of the Howard charge, but, rather, he

argues that it was inappropriate for the trial court to give it. Loza interprets the jury’s

note as a request for guidance on how to fill out the verdict forms related to the death

penalty specifications. He concedes that the trial court properly instructed the jury on

this point, but he contends that the trial court erred by also giving the Howard charge,

which was not responsive to the jury’s request. 
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 35

7

Loza’s claim, as presented to the district court, contained four sub-parts. Loza argued that:

(1) he was selectively charged with capital offenses due to pervasive racism in Butler County, Ohio; (2) the

death penalty is disproportionately imposed on Hispanics in Ohio; (3) he was denied a representative jury

from a fair cross-section of the community; and (4) racial minorities were excluded from the jury at his

trial. The district court granted a certificate of appealability as to the entire claim, but Loza raises only the

first sub-part on appeal. He has abandoned the other arguments, and we do not consider them. Bradshaw, 621 F.3d at 413–14.

8

In order to obtain discovery from the Government on a selective prosecution claim, a defendant

must present “some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the [selective

prosecution] defense”—discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 469

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Ohio Court of Appeals held that Loza did not present

any evidence of discriminatory effect because the general statistics on race and sentencing that he

presented were insufficient to demonstrate that race affect the prosecution of his case. Loza, 1997 WL

The jury’s note is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as requesting guidance on

how to resolve a deadlock or simply asking how to indicate this deadlock on the verdict

forms. The Ohio Supreme Court interpreted the jury’s note as a request “for clarification

on how to decide a specification if a unanimous verdict could not be reached.” Loza,

641 N.E.2d at 1104. Given the ambiguity of the note, the Ohio Supreme Court’s factual

determination that the jury was asking for guidance on how to resolve a deadlock was

not unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The Ohio Supreme Court did not

unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in determining that the Howard

charge was appropriate under the circumstances of this case. We decline to grant habeas

relief on this ground.

VIII.

Loza argues that the Ohio Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly

established federal law when it rejected his claim that he was selectively prosecuted for

capital offenses based on invidious racial discrimination.7 Amicus, the Government of

Mexico, also argues in support of Loza’s claim.

Loza raised his selective prosecution claim in state post-conviction proceedings.

He filed a motion to conduct discovery on the allegedly discriminatory enforcement of

the death penalty in Butler County. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas denied

Loza’s motion. The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that the court properly denied Loza’s

motion because he could not meet the requirements for discovery on a selective

prosecution established in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).8

 Loza, 1997
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 36

634348, at *5.

9

This new evidence included depositions of Knable, officers in the Middletown Police

Department, and the prosecutors at Loza’s trial. During his deposition, Knable admitted that on a video

of the crime scene, he could be heard referring to Loza as a “wetback from California.” The new evidence

also included the affidavit of Janet Dickens, a social worker who helped place Dorothy Jackson in foster

care, and a report by Dickens. The report stated that Dorothy Jackson’s foster mother expressed concern

to Dickens about the girl. According to the foster mother, Dorothy Jackson “had admitted to [the foster

mother’s grandson that] she did kill her mother.” Loza presented a copy of the report with a stamp

indicating that it was received by the Butler County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office in June 1992 while

Loza’s case was on direct appeal. Loza deposed the prosecutors on appeal, who denied having seen the

report and said that if they had been aware of it, they would have disclosed it to Loza pursuant to Brady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the

accused. Loza claims that he did not discover Dickens’s report until he conducted discovery on this claim

in federal court. 

WL 634348, at *7. The court also denied his selective prosecution claim on the merits.

Loza raised his selective prosecution claim again in his habeas petition. The district

court granted Loza’s motion for leave to conduct discovery on the claim. The district

court considered the new evidence that was produced9 and denied Loza’s selective

prosecution claim.

The district court issued its decision in Loza’s case prior to the Supreme Court’s

decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. —, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011). In Pinholster, the

Court held that “[i]f a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal

habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was

before that state court.” Id. at 1400. Pinholster emphasized that “district courts are

precluded from conducting evidentiary hearings to supplement existing state court

records when a state court has issued a decision on the merits with respect to the claim

at issue.” Ballinger v. Prelesnik, 709 F.3d 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2013). In Harrington, the

Court clarified the meaning of “on the merits,” stating: “When a federal claim has been

presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that

the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or

state-law procedural principles to the contrary.” Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 784–85.

Loza’s selective prosecution claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court and,

therefore, Pinholster requires us to consider only the evidence that was before the state

court when reviewing Loza’s claim.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 37

10Dissenting in Pinholster, Justice Sotomayor noted that the majority’s opinion does not foreclose

the possibility that “[t]here may be situations in which new evidence supporting a claim adjudicated on

the merits gives rise to an altogether different claim”—for example, when evidence withheld by a

prosecutor relating to one claim gives rise to a separate claim under Brady. 131 S.Ct. at 1417 n.5. We

need not consider this issue because Loza has not raised a Brady claim. He simply points to an alleged

violation that caused evidence to be “new” to him in his habeas proceeding.

Loza argues that he tried to develop his claim in state court, but the state court

denied him an evidentiary hearing, which he claims violated his due process rights.

Loza compares his case to Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). In Panetti, the

Supreme Court held that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal

law when it failed to follow the procedural requirements established in Ford v.

Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), for determining the competency of a prisoner to be

executed. Panetti, 551 U.S. at 948. The Court held that because the state court’s

adjudication of the petitioner’s incompetency claim resulted from its failure to follow

the procedures established in Ford, the state court’s ruling on this claim was not entitled

to AEDPA deference. Id. Loza’s case is distinguishable from Panetti. Loza does not

demonstrate that Ohio Court of Appeals’s decision that he did not satisfy the

requirements for an evidentiary hearing on a selective prosecution claim was contrary

to or an unreasonable application of Armstrong. There is no indication that the court’s

ruling violated Loza’s rights. Panetti does not provide a reason for refusing to accord

AEDPA deference to the Ohio Court of Appeals’s decision. 

Loza also argues that the State failed to provide him with Brady material.10 As

a result, he says, the state court did not have the benefit of this evidence when it ruled

on his selective prosecution claim. In Brown v. Smith, we held that a habeas claim has

not been “adjudicated on the merits” when “new, substantial evidence supporting [the]

claim comes to light during the proceedings in federal district court,” and, therefore, the

state court’s decision is not entitled to AEDPA deference. 551 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir.

2008). However, as several unpublished decisions of this court have recognized, it is

unlikely that Brown remains good law in light of Pinholster and Harrington. Preslesnik,

709 F.3d at 561–62; see also Moritz v. Lafler, No. 12-1222, 2013 WL 1777127, at *8 n.5

(6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2013); Williams v. Lafler, 494 F. App’x 526, 529 (6th Cir. 2012).

Therefore, we conclude that the state court adjudicated Loza’s claim on the merits, and
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 38

we apply AEDPA’s deferential standard of review, and consider only the evidence that

was before the state court when reviewing Loza’s claim.

We now turn to the merits of Loza’s claim. “A selective-prosecution claim is not

a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the

prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.”

Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463. Prosecutors possess “‘broad discretion’ as to whom to

prosecute.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (quoting United States v.

Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 380 n.11 (1982)). As a result, prosecutorial decisions enjoy a

“‘presumption of regularity.’” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464 (quoting United States v.

Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14 (1926)). “[S]o long as the prosecutor has

probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the

decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand

jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357,

364 (1978) (footnote omitted).

Nonetheless, prosecutorial discretion is not “unfettered.” United States v.

Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124–25 (1979). The decision to prosecute cannot be

“deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other

arbitrary classification.” Wayte, 470 U.S. at 608 (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). A criminal defendant bears the burden of proving that his prosecution violated

equal protection standards. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292 (1987). “In order

to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection, a criminal

defendant must present ‘clear evidence to the contrary.’” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465

(quoting Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. at 14–15). This standard is demanding.

Id. at 463. A defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutorial policy “‘had a

discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.’” Id. at 465

(quoting Wayte, 470 U.S. at 608)). In a case where a defendant alleges unlawful

discrimination based on race, he “must show that similarly situated individuals of a

different race were not prosecuted” in order to establish discriminatory effect. Id.;

accord McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 292.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 39

11Loza also argues that he and Dorothy Jackson was treated differently in other ways. For

example, he claims that employees at the juvenile detention center where Dorothy Jackson was held

laundered her clothes before they were sent for forensic analysis but that Loza’s clothes were not

laundered. For purposes of our analysis, we do not ask whether Dorothy Jackson was treated differently

from Loza. We ask whether she was similarly situated to Loza and whether authorities nonetheless

unreasonably failed to prosecute her for the same crime.

The Ohio Court of Appeals rejected Loza’s selective prosecution claim, stating:

Loza argues that since Jackson, who is Caucasian, was similarly

situated and not prosecuted for murder, he has established a claim of

selective prosecution. However, unlike Loza, Jackson was a juvenile at

the time that the murders were committed. Further, since the amount of

evidence implicating Loza was significant and substantial, there was a

race-neutral explanation for the prosecutor’s decision. Therefore, Loza

failed to show that the decision to prosecute him for murder was based

upon his race and the trial court properly dismissed his sixth claim for

relief.

Loza, 1997 WL 634348, at *5 (citations omitted).

The Ohio Court of Appeals’s decision was not unreasonable. Loza argues that

he was similarly situated to Dorothy Jackson, but that she was not prosecuted for

murder.11 He contends that the fact that Jackson was a juvenile who was ineligible for

the death penalty does not establish that she was not similarly situated to Loza. Even if

we accepted this argument, Loza ignores the “significant and substantial” evidence

implicating him in the killings, including his confession and Dorothy Jackson’s

statement to investigators that Loza killed her family. No such evidence implicated

Dorothy Jackson in the killings. The court’s determination that Loza and Jackson were

not similarly situated and, therefore, that Loza could not demonstrate the discriminatory

effect necessary to succeed on his selective prosecution claim, was not unreasonable.

Loza argues that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory

purpose and, therefore, he is entitled to relief on this claim. First, Loza references

statistical data included in his petition for post-conviction relief in state court that the

death penalty is disproportionately imposed in Butler County, Ohio on defendants who

are racial minorities and kill white victims. However, such general statistical evidence

is insufficient to establish discriminatory purpose. McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 286, 292–97
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 40

(holding that a study indicating that black defendants and defendants charged with

killing white people are more likely to receive the death penalty was insufficient to

support an inference that the decisionmakers in petitioner’s case acted with

discriminatory purpose); see also Keene v. Mitchell, 525 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir. 2008)

(rejecting petitioner’s argument based on statistical evidence of racial disparities in

capital indictments in the county in which petitioner was tried because the petitioner

offered no evidence demonstrating purposeful discrimination in his own case); Coleman

v. Mitchell, 268 F.3d 417, 441–42 (6th Cir. 2001) (acknowledging statistical evidence

of “extremely troubling” racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty in Ohio

but holding that under McCleskey, this evidence is not enough to demonstrate selective

prosecution). 

Loza also argues—based on evidence from the evidentiary hearing in district

court, which we do not consider—that the decisionmakers in his case, specifically

Knable, were motivated by a discriminatory purpose. In Armstrong, the Supreme Court

expressly rejected the argument that when a defendant demonstrates discriminatory

purpose, he need not establish discriminatory effect to succeed on a selective prosecution

claim. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 467–68; see also Cornwell v. Bradshaw, 559 F.3d 398,

411 (6th Cir. 2009) (emphasizing that under McCleskey and Armstrong, a defendant

must prove both discriminatory purpose and effect). Both showings are required. The

Ohio Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that Loza’s failure to show discriminatory

effect meant that he could not succeed on his claim. Loza is not entitled to habeas relief

on this ground.

IX.

Finally, Loza argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because officials failed

to inform him after his arrest that he had a right to contact the Mexican consulate

pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (“Vienna Convention”). The

Government of Mexico also argues in support of this claim.

Loza raised this argument in state post-conviction proceedings. The Ohio Court

of Appeals rejected his argument:
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 41

Pursuant to [Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.21(A)(1)], postconviction

relief is dependent upon a showing that “there was such a denial or

infringement of the person’s rights as to render the judgment void or

voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United

States.” Thus, a petitioner is not entitled to postconviction relief unless

he shows a violation of rights that are constitutional in dimension, which

occurred at the time that he was tried and convicted.

Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States

Constitution, federal statutes and treaties are the supreme law of the land.

Thus, a treaty has been deemed to be the substantial equivalent of a

federal statute. However, rights under a treaty and rights under a federal

statute are not the equivalent of constitutional rights.

Loza, 1997 WL 634348, *1–2 (citations and footnote omitted). The court agreed with

the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion in Murphy v. Netherland, 116 F.3d 97 (4th Cir. 1997),

that “[e]ven if the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations could be said to create

individual rights (as opposed to setting out the rights and obligations of signatory

nations), it certainly does not create constitutional rights.” Id. at *2 (quoting Murphy,

116 F.3d at 100)). Therefore, it held that “Loza’s claim did not constitute a substantive

ground that entitled him to postconviction relief” under Ohio law. Id. 

The Ohio Court of Appeals did not adjudicate Loza’s claim “on the merits,” and,

consequently, AEDPA deference does not apply to our analysis. The Ohio Court of

Appeals reasoned that under Ohio law, post-conviction relief is available only for

violations of the state and federal constitutions, and Loza’s Vienna Convention claim did

not implicate constitutional rights. If a state court does not reach the merits of a

petitioner’s claim, “federal habeas review is not subject to the deferential standard that

applies under AEDPA.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009). “Instead, the claim is

reviewed de novo.” Id.; Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 390 (2005) (applying de novo

review where state courts did not reach Strickland’s prejudice prong); Wynne v. Renico,

606 F.3d 867, 870 (6th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e give fresh review to [petitioner’s] federal

claim because the state courts addressed only his state law grounds for relief, which

means they did not adjudicate the federal claim on the merits.”) (internal citations,

quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 42

12“Under the language of the treaty, the ‘sending State’ is the nation of the arrested foreign

national, and the ‘receiving State’ is the arresting nation.” Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d at 396 n.3.

A federal court may grant habeas relief to a prisoner who is in custody “in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(c)(3). The Vienna Convention is “a seventy-nine article, multilateral treaty that

governs the establishment of consular relations between nations and defines the

functions of a consulate.” United States v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377, 388 (6th Cir.

2001). Both the United States and Mexico are signatories to the Vienna Convention.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, art. 36, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 313,

369 [hereinafter Vienna Convention]. In 1969, the United States ratified the Vienna

Convention and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of

Disputes to the Vienna Convention (“Optional Protocol”), Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 325

[hereinafter Optional Protocol]. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 499 (2008). The

Optional Protocol provides that disputes regarding the interpretation or application of

the Vienna Convention “‘shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International

Court of Justice [“ICJ”]’ and ‘may accordingly be brought before the [ICJ] . . . by any

party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.’” Medellin, 552 U.S. at 499

(quoting Optional Protocol, 21 U.S.T. at 326). The ICJ is the “principal judicial organ

of the United Nations.” Id. (quoting United Nations Charter, art. 92, 59 Stat. 1051, T.S.

No. 993 (1945)).

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention provides that “if a person detained by a

foreign country ‘so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall,

without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State’ of such detention, and

‘inform the [detainee] of his righ[t]’ to request assistance from the consul of his own

state.”12 Medellin, 552 U.S. at 499 (quoting Vienna Convention, 21 U.S.T. at 101). In

2003, Mexico instituted proceedings against the United States before the ICJ, alleging

that the United States violated the Vienna Convention in the cases of Mexican

nationals—including Loza—who committed crimes in the United States when

authorities failed to inform them of their right to contact the consulate following their

arrests. Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. U.S.), 2004
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 43

13With respect to Loza, specifically, the ICJ held that the United States failed to inform Loza of

his rights and failed to notify the Mexican consulate of Loza’s detention. Avena at 54–55.

I.C.J. 12, 19, 39 (Mar. 31) [hereinafter Avena]. In March 2004, the ICJ held that the

United States violated the Vienna Convention13 and that the Mexican nationals were

entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences. Id. at 70–73.

Shortly after the ICJ’s decision, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol.

Medellin, 552 U.S. at 500. Additionally, President George W. Bush issued a

memorandum to the Attorney General stating “that the United States would ‘discharge

its international obligations’ under Avena ‘by having State courts give effect to the

decision.’” Id. at 498 (citation omitted).

The Supremacy Clause provides that “all Treaties made . . . under the Authority

of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. Const. art. VI cl. 2.

“ Under federal law treaties have the same legal effect as statutes.” Emuegbunam,

268 F.3d at 389. However, “[a]s a general rule . . . international treaties do not create

rights that are privately enforceable in the federal courts.” Id.; see also Head Money

Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884) (“A treaty is primarily a compact between independent

nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor

of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the

subject of international negotiations and reclamations . . . . [T]he judicial courts have

nothing to do and can give no redress.”). Even international agreements that directly

benefit private persons “‘generally do not create private rights or provide for a private

cause of action in domestic courts.’” Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d at 389 (quoting

Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 907, cmt. a

(1987)).

The Supreme Court has expressly declined to decide whether Article 36 of the

Vienna Convention creates individual rights that are enforceable in domestic courts. See

Medellin, 552 U.S. at 506 n.4 (“[W]e thus assume, without deciding, that Article 36

grants foreign nationals an individually enforceable right to request that their consular

officers be notified of their detention, and an accompanying right to be informed by
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 44

authorities of the availability of consular notification.”) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted); Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 343 (2006) (“[W]e find it

unnecessary to resolve the question whether the Vienna Convention grants individuals

enforceable rights . . . . [W]e assume, without deciding, that Article 36 does

grant . . . such rights.”); Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 376 (1998) (stating that the

Vienna Convention “arguably confers on an individual the right to consular assistance

following arrest”).

However, we and other circuit courts hold that “the Vienna Convention does not

create a right for a detained foreign national to consult with the diplomatic

representatives of his nation that the federal courts can enforce.” Emuegbunam, 268

F.3d at 394; see also Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he

announced rule is that the Vienna Convention does not confer enforceable individual

rights.”); Cornejo v. Cnty. of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853, 863 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e hold

that Article 36 does not unambiguously give [a foreign national] a privately enforceable

right to be notified.”); United States v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d 192, 198 (5th Cir. 2001)

(stating that the defendant’s argument “fails to lead to an ineluctable conclusion that

Article 36 creates judicially enforceable rights . . . . Thus, the presumption against such

rights ought to be conclusive.”). But see Jogi v. Voges, 480 F.3d 822, 835–36 (7th Cir.

2007) (holding that Article 36 does create individually enforceable rights). Moreover,

the Supreme Court held in Medellin that the ICJ’s decision in Avena is not of its own

force binding law that can be enforced in domestic courts and that President Bush’s

memorandum did not make the decision binding. Medellin, 552 U.S. at 498–99; see also

Garcia v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 2866, 2867 (2011) (“[W]e held [in Medellin] that neither the

Avena decision nor the President’s Memorandum purporting to implement that decision

constituted directly enforceable federal law.”). 

For these reasons, Loza is not entitled to habeas relief on the ground that

authorities violated his rights under the Vienna Convention.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 45

X.

We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Loza’s petition for habeas corpus.
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 46

______________________________________________________

CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

______________________________________________________

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority except with respect to Loza’s argument under Crane v.

Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986), as to which I respectfully dissent. The majority holds

that although the Ohio Supreme Court misapplied Crane, its decision was not contrary

to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, Crane because in deciding to

affirm the exclusion of Fisher’s testimony, the court considered that the jury was able

to view the taped confession in evaluating its credibility, and thus did not apply a

mechanistic or per se rule in violation of Crane. I cannot agree. 

Crane held that absent a valid state justification, the blanket exclusion of

competent evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession violates the defendant’s

right to present a complete defense. See Crane, 476 U.S. at 690–91. Crane involved the

same prohibition invoked here–the court had already determined that the confession was

voluntary and on that basis excluded Fisher’s testimony concerning the reliability of the

confession. See State v. Loza, 641 N.E.2d 1082, 1093 (Ohio 1994) (“[T]he trial court

concluded that since it had already made a pretrial determination that Loza’s confession

was voluntary, Dr. Fisher’s testimony was not appropriate during the guilt phase.”). The

Ohio Supreme Court failed to acknowledge that excluding the testimony was error, and,

in fact, relied on the same reason in affirming the trial court. Id. (noting in its decision

to affirm that “the trial court already ruled on the voluntariness of the confession”).

It would seem that this case is squarely governed by Crane. However, the

majority characterizes the relevant question of clearly established federal law as whether

the state court applied an “arbitrary, mechanistic, or per se” rule to affirm the exclusion

of Fisher’s testimony. Although the Supreme Court has described the rule applied in

Crane, and here, as “arbitrary,” see Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326 (2006)

(“Another arbitrary rule was held unconstitutional in Crane . . . .”), the majority finds

that because the Ohio Supreme Court did not apply Crane’s arbitrary rule
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 47

mechanistically, it made no error cognizable on habeas review. 

This determination is flawed. If the relevant question is whether the state applied

an arbitrary, mechanistic, or per se rule, then the fact that the Ohio Supreme Court

applied Crane’s arbitrary rule should be enough to establish a constitutional violation

resulting from an unreasonable application of Crane. By forgiving application of the

arbitrary rule because the Ohio Supreme Court did not apply the rule mechanistically,

or in a per se fashion, the majority moves its own benchmark. 

More to the point, however, the Ohio Supreme Court’s discussion of the jury’s

ability to view the videotape of Loza’s confession did not make its application of the

Crane rule to exclude Fisher’s testimony any less arbitrary. In summarizing the

evidentiary value of the videotape, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that by watching it the

jury could “see and hear the tone and manner of the interrogation, the number of officers

present, the physical characteristics of the room, and the length of the interrogation.”

Loza, 641 N.E.2d at 1094. If Loza were claiming simply that his confession was coerced

by the police, the Ohio Supreme Court’s observation might have force. But the manner

in which the interrogation was conducted has no bearing on Loza’s credibility defense.

Loza did not seek to argue to the jury that he confessed because of factors relating to the

physical circumstances of his confession, e.g., that he was physically intimidated or

questioned for long hours in a small space. Rather, Loza sought to explain to the jury

through Fisher’s testimony that he confessed because his particular psychological

makeup and personal history made him uniquely susceptible to the officers’ statements

about the potential harm to Dorothy Jackson and his unborn child if he did not confess,

and that making a false confession would be consistent with his psychological and

personal history. The trial court’s evidentiary ruling denied him the opportunity to

present evidence in support of that defense—his sole explanation for his purportedly

false confession—during the guilt phase of trial, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed

without identifying a valid reason to exclude the evidence. 

Accordingly, because the trial court excluded Fisher’s testimony for the reason

condemned in Crane and for no other valid reason, and the Ohio Supreme Court failed
No. 11-3453 Loza v. Mitchell Page 48

to recognize and, in fact, repeated the error, I cannot agree with the majority’s

determination that the Ohio Supreme Court decision was not contrary to or an

unreasonable application of Crane.