Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 303

142 

SMITH  v.  SPISAK 

Opinion of the Court 

ments and ordered habeas relief.  We now reverse the Court 
of Appeals. 

I 

In  1983,  an  Ohio  jury  convicted  Spisak  of  three  murders 
and  two  attempted  murders  at  Cleveland  State  University 
in  1982.  The  jury  recommended,  and  the  judge  imposed,  a 
death  sentence.  The  Ohio  courts  denied  Spisak’s  claims, 
both  on  direct  appeal  and  on  collateral  review.  State  v. 
Spisak,  36  Ohio  St.  3d  80,  521  N.  E.  2d  800  (1988)  (per  cu­
riam);  State  v.  Spisak,  No.  67229,  1995  WL  229108  (Ohio 
App.,  8th  Dist.,  Cuyahoga  Cty.,  Apr.  13,  1995);  State  v. 
Spisak,  73  Ohio  St.  3d  151,  652  N.  E.  2d  719  (1995)  (per 
curiam). 

Spisak  then  sought  a  federal  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
Among other claims, he argued that the sentencing phase of 
his  trial  violated  the  U. S.  Constitution  for  the  two  reasons 
we  consider  here.  The  District  Court  denied  his  petition. 
Spisak  v.  Coyle,  Case  No.  1:95CV2675  (ND  Ohio,  Apr.  18, 
2003), App. to Pet. for Cert. 95a.  But the Court of Appeals 
accepted Spisak’s two claims, namely, his mitigation instruc­
tion  claim  and  his  ineffective-assistance-of-counsel  claim. 
Spisak  v.  Mitchell,  465  F.  3d  684,  703–706,  708–711  (CA6 
2006).  The Court of Appeals consequently ordered the Dis­
trict  Court  to  issue  a  conditional  writ  of  habeas  corpus  for­
bidding Spisak’s execution.  Id., at 715–716. 

The  State  of  Ohio  then  sought  certiorari  in  this  Court. 
We  granted  the  petition  and  vacated  the  Court  of  Appeals’ 
judgment.  Hudson v.  Spisak, 552 U. S. 945 (2007).  We re­
manded the case for further consideration in light of two re­
cent  cases  in  which  this  Court  had  held  that  lower  federal 
courts  had  not  properly  taken  account  of  the  deference  fed­
eral law grants state-court determinations on federal habeas 
review.  Ibid.;  see  28  U. S. C.  § 2254(d);  Carey  v.  Musladin, 
549  U. S.  70  (2006);  Schriro  v.  Landrigan,  550  U. S.  465 
(2007).  On  remand,  the  Sixth  Circuit  reinstated  its  earlier