Opinion ID: 795103
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Ohio Supreme Court's Decision Was an Unreasonable Application of Strickland and Gray

Text: 118 The Ohio Supreme Court's determination that defense counsel did not render constitutionally ineffective assistance in failing to attempt to rehabilitate jurors is an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's holdings in Strickland and Gray. As discussed in section I, under Strickland, a defendant seeking to establish that his counsel's assistance was ineffective must show: (1) that his counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) that the defense was prejudiced by the attorney's deficient performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Here, counsel acted in a manner contrary to established professional norms by failing to attempt to rehabilitate jurors. Furthermore, his actions resulted in the exclusion of two jurors for whom a reasonable probability of rehabilitation existed. If such jurors had been rehabilitated, their exclusion would have been reversible error under Gray. Thus, it is unreasonable not to find prejudice under Strickland and Gray. 119
120 The majority relies much on Strickland 's presumption that an attorney's conduct is strategic unless proven otherwise. The presumption of strategy is inappropriate in this case, however, because Petitioner has successfully rebutted it. 3 In the instant case, Petitioner has submitted an affidavit from an experienced death penalty defender, Gerald Simmons. According to Simmons, it is standard practice for a death penalty defender to attempt to rehabilitate scrupled jurors and to object to their exclusion. In fact, Simmons states that it is unacceptable not to attempt to rehabilitate scrupled jurors or object to their exclusion. 121 Simmons statements are supported by the 2003 ABA Guidelines on Death Penalty Representation. 4 Guideline 10.10.2 indicates that death penalty defenders should be familiar with techniques to life qualify the jury and rehabilitate scrupled jurors. The commentary to 10.10.2 further explains: 122 Counsel should conduct a voir dire that is broad enough to expose those prospective jurors who are unable or unwilling to follow the applicable sentencing law, whether because they will automatically vote for death in certain circumstances or because they are unwilling to consider mitigating evidence. Counsel should also develop a strategy for rehabilitating those prospective jurors who have indicated opposition to the death penalty. 123 ABA Guideline 10.10.2, commentary; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (noting that ABA guidelines reflect prevailing professional norms). In light of Simmons' affidavit and the ABA guidelines, there is no reason for this Court to presume that counsel's conduct during voir dire was strategic. In other words, counsel's failure to attempt to rehabilitate the scrupled jurors or object to their exclusion was objectively unreasonable in light of prevailing professional norms. 124
125 To establish that a defense attorney's failure to rehabilitate a scrupled juror was prejudicial in violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the excluded juror would have been rehabilitated and thus not subject to exclusion under Witherspoon and Witt. Because a reasonable probability existed that counsel's attempts to rehabilitate jurors Julie Hoffman and Barbara Costamire would have been successful, Petitioner has established prejudice. 126
127 A juror may not be excluded under Witherspoon unless the juror's views on the death penalty prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duty as juror in accordance with instructions and oath. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424, 105 S.Ct. 844; Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980). A juror's mere reservations or scruples regarding the death penalty are not a valid ground upon which a trial court may exclude a juror. Id. Where a trial court improperly excludes a juror under Witherspoon for the juror's mere reservations or scruples, the trial court's error is presumed prejudicial and the death sentence must be reversed. Gray, 481 U.S. at 667-668, 107 S.Ct. 2045. The improper exclusion of even one qualified juror under Witherspoon-Witt may result in a jury more likely than the average jury to impose death, thus rendering the jury partial. Id. As the Supreme Court explained in Gray, 128 Because the Witherspoon-Witt standard is rooted in the constitutional right to an impartial jury and because the impartiality of an adjudicator goes to the very integrity of the legal system, the Chapman harmless-error analysis cannot apply. We have recognized that some constitutional rights are so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error. The right to an impartial adjudicator, be it judge or jury, is such a right. As stated in Witherspoon, a capital defendant's constitutional right not to be sentenced by a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death surely equates with a criminal defendant's right not to have his culpability determined by a tribunal organized to convict. 129 Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 130
131 As discussed above, Strickland requires a defendant to show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Gray instructs courts to presume the outcome would have been different where a juror is excluded under Witherspoon and Witt. 481 U.S. at 668, 107 S.Ct. 2045. Therefore, it must follow that if Petitioner can show that there is a reasonable probability that a juror could not have been properly excluded under Witherspoon, this Court must presume that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. 132
133 Here, Petitioner has satisfied this burden. Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable probability that his defense counsel could have successfully rehabilitated two of his jurors, Julie Hoffman and Barabara Costamire. Neither juror clearly stated that they were incapable of imposing the death penalty but only that its imposition would bother them or make them uncomfortable. There is nothing else in the record to indicate that Hoffman and Costamire could not have imposed the death penalty despite the discomfort it might have caused them. While the trial court might have acted within its discretion in excluding them in lieu of these statements, it seems likely that defense counsel could have rehabilitated them. That is, in light of the equivocal nature of the statements of Hoffman and Costamire, there is a reasonable probability that defense counsel could have successfully shown that although Hoffman and Costamire had reservations about the death penalty, they were capable of following their instructions and oath. 134
135 The Supreme Court of Ohio's determination that Gray does not extend to ineffective assistance of counsel cases is unreasonable. Whether defense counsel could have rehabilitated a juror will always be speculative, thus leaving defendants with no recourse where defense counsel errs and that error causes prejudice. Petitioner has no way of proving that rehabilitation would have been successful because the attorney's failure necessarily leaves no record. It should not follow that an attorney's abdication of his responsibilities can never result in prejudice within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. Consequently, the only rational holding would be to presume prejudice under Gray when, as here, the jurors responses are equivocal, and do not clearly disqualify them under Witherspoon.