Opinion ID: 612544
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State's Responses

Text: To dispute the allegations of prejudice, the state makes several arguments. First, Foust's postconviction petition was heard by the Honorable Stuart A. Friedman, the same judge who presided over the three-judge panel that sentenced Foust to death. The state emphasizes Judge Friedman's postconviction finding that additional mitigating evidence would not have altered the panel's decision. In Schriro v. Landrigan, the Supreme Court found it worth noting... that the judge presiding on postconviction review was ideally situated to make [a particular] assessment because she is the same judge that sentenced Landrigan.... 550 U.S. 465, 476, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007). Landrigan is inapplicable to the case before us because Ohio law requires unanimity among a three-judge panel for a sentence of death. Thus, any one of the three judges alone could have prevented imposition of the death penalty. Dickerson v. Bagley, 453 F.3d 690, 699 (6th Cir.2006). Judge Friedman's view that the aggravating factors were too extreme for any mitigators to overpower them tells us little about how the other two judges might have viewed the new evidence, even if we were to give controlling weight to Judge Friedman's post-hoc remarks. Our role is to decide whether Judge Friedman's conclusion was reasonable, and we find that it was not. Second, the state attacks the credibility of some of the new witnesses, citing derogatory comments that GaryAnne made about her siblings, Jeremy's incarceration at the time of trial, and Barbara's testimony that Julie had a lot of issues. Appellant Br. 34-36. The state contends that the testimony of GaryAnne in particular would have been possibly damaging. Id. at 36. Yet the fact [t]hat someone may make a bad witness is no explanation for not interviewing her first. Johnson, 544 F.3d at 600. Moreover, the state admits that the facts of Foust's upbringing were uncontested. Appellant Br. at 37. At issue was not the credibility of the depiction of Foust's upbringing, but the categories and details that the depiction included. In fact, the troubled adult lives of Foust's siblings would bolster Foust's claim that his childhood home was toxic. Third, the state proposes that Foust was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to obtain the Children's Services records because the documented events took place before Foust was born or before he was three years old. The state is partly correct as to timing. The record shows the Fousts' long history of neglecting their children that predated Foust's birth. Some of those facts shed light on the environment in which Foust was raised. The facts that we have cited, however, took place after Foust was born and at various times during his childhood. Fourth, we agree with the state that the failure to admit records from the Department of Youth Services did not prejudice Foust. Karpawich testified that Foust behaved well and obtained good grades during his time in the juvenile facility. Karpawich also testified that Foust behaved well in the controlled environment of the prison where Foust resided while awaiting trial. App'x Vol. 7 at 2654-55. These are not new facts, nor are they ones on which we base our holding.