Opinion ID: 2974873
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Withdrawal of the Jury Waiver

Text: Following remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for a new sentencing hearing, Davis filed a motion to withdraw his waiver of the right to have his sentence determined by a jury, rather than by the three-judge panel that originally heard his case and imposed the death sentence, arguing that the original waiver had not been voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered. The trial court denied the motion and, as noted above, again sentenced Davis to be executed. Challenging the failure to permit withdrawal of his waiver of the right to be tried by a jury, Davis first contends that the waiver was not voluntary because the trial court’s denial of his motion to sever the charges in the indictment forced him to seek a non-jury trial. Of course, this argument can succeed only to the extent that the court’s decision to deny severance was in error and also constituted a violation of due process. Davis also contends that his jury trial waiver was not “knowing and intelligent” because, at the time the waiver was executed, he did not know and could not anticipate that the Ohio Supreme Court would subsequently hold that a capital defendant whose sentence was set aside following a jury verdict was ineligible for reimposition of the death penalty on remand for resentencing, see Penix, 513 N.E.2d at 745, but that Penix would not control situations involving sentencing and resentencing by three-judge panels. See Davis II, 528 N.E.2d at 936. The petitioner claims that this drastic difference in potential penalties upon resentencing violated his constitutional right to equal protection of the law.
The indictment against Davis contained two counts: aggravated murder, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.01(A); and possession of a weapon while under a disability, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13(A)(2). Davis’s prior conviction for the stabbing and second-degree murder of his first wife was specified in Count 1 to support an aggravating circumstance defined in § 2929.04(A)(5), which was a necessary element to make the alleged murder of Suzette Butler a capital offense. Another prior conviction, this one for shooting at his first wife with a firearm with upon appeal for the sole reason that the statutory procedure for imposing the sentence of death that is set forth in sections 2929.03 and 2929.04 of the Revised Code is unconstitutional, or is vacated pursuant to division (C) of section 2929.05 of the Revised Code, the trial court that sentenced the offender shall conduct a hearing to resentence the offender. At the resentencing hearing, the court shall sentence the offender to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving twenty full years of imprisonment or to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving thirty full years of imprisonment. No. 02-3227 Davis v. Coyle Page 13 the intent to murder her, was likewise specified in the indictment, but only in support of the weapons charge in Count 2. Prior to trial, Davis filed a motion to sever these two counts, alleging that he would be prejudiced by joinder of the offenses. Specifically, Davis argued that if the two counts were tried together, the jury would hear evidence concerning his prior homicide conviction, which would be admissible solely to prove under Count 2 that he could not legally possess a firearm, thereby creating a risk that the jury would improperly consider that prior act in deciding his guilt on the aggravated murder charge in Count 1.5 Davis also argued that the provisions of Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.022(A) supported his position that the Ohio legislature intended to provide special protection for capital defendants against the improper consideration of prior bad acts. When the trial court denied his motion for severance, Davis waived his right to a jury trial and elected to proceed instead before a three-judge panel. On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that the two counts had been properly joined in the indictment pursuant to Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure (8)(A), and that petitioner had not met his burden of affirmatively demonstrating prejudice by the joinder. See Davis I, 1986 WL 5989, at -8. The appeals court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that § 2929.022(A) permitted the defendant to bar all evidence concerning a prior purposeful killing that would be admissible at trial for reasons other than to prove the aggravating circumstance. See id. at . The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing that the offenses had been properly joined under Rule 8(A), which permits joinder of separate offenses only where the offenses charged “are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.” The court found that “[c]learly . . . the crimes charged in the indictment arose from the same act or transaction.” Davis II, 528 N.E.2d at 928. The court also ruled that § 2929.022(A) did not trump Rule (8)(A) to mandate severance. “[I]t is not the purpose of R.C. 2929.022(A) to provide a defendant with a blanket statutory right to preclude, at the guilt phase, the introduction of all evidence pertaining to prior purposeful killings which is otherwise admissible, i.e., the evidence necessary to prove the offense of having a weapon while under a disability.” Id. at 929. In denying Davis’s motion for severance, the Ohio courts applied state law and, as a result, we must accept as binding the state supreme court’s interpretation of the interaction between the capital specification-election provision, Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.022(A), and the rules for joinder and severance of criminal charges. In considering whether the denial of severance amounted to an error warranting relief in a habeas proceeding, the issue before us is not whether the failure to sever counts for separate trials was a violation of a state rule of procedure, but whether the failure to sever denied the petitioner due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Corbett v. Bordenkircher, 615 F.2d 722, 724 (6th Cir. 1980). In other words, in order to obtain federal habeas relief on this claim involving state law, Davis must show that misjoinder of the counts “result[ed] in prejudice so great as to deny a defendant his . . . right to a fair trial.” United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 446 n.8 (1986). Without question, a risk of undue prejudice exists whenever joinder of counts permits introduction of evidence of other crimes that would otherwise be inadmissible. See, e.g., Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 1998). By allowing joinder of offenses, the possibility exists that a jury may use the evidence of one of the charged crimes to infer a general criminal disposition by the defendant; the jury also may confuse or cumulate the evidence of the various 5 Because Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.022(A) permits a capital defendant charged with a prior conviction specification under § 2929.04(A)(5) to have the trial judge determine the existence of the aggravating circumstance at the sentencing hearing, rather than submit that issue to the jury, severance of the two counts would have allowed Davis to keep evidence of the second-degree murder conviction from the jurors until the sentencing phase of the proceedings. No. 02-3227 Davis v. Coyle Page 14 crimes charges. See Lucero v. Kerby, 133 F.3d 1299, 1314 (10th Cir. 1998). The prejudice that Davis must demonstrate, however, in order to justify a grant of a writ of habeas corpus is actual prejudice, not merely the potential for prejudice. See Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374, 377-78 (2d Cir. 1993). After examining settled case law, we conclude in this case that the fact that a jury had learned of Davis’s prior felony conviction did not result in an unfair trial as a matter of law. For example, in Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 (1967) (reaffirmed by Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (1983)), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Texas recidivist statute under which the jury trying the pending criminal charge was informed of a defendant’s prior convictions during the guilt phase. The trial court instructed the jury that these prior convictions were to be considered for sentencing purposes only, and could not be taken into account in determining guilt on the pending charge. The Court recognized that evidence of a prior conviction might be admitted, among other reasons, to prove an element of the indicted offense. See id. at 560. Nevertheless, in such a situation, “the jury learns of prior crimes committed by the defendant, but the conceded possibility of prejudice is believed to be outweighed by the validity of the State’s purpose in permitting introduction of the evidence.” Id. at 561. The Court concluded that the prejudice suffered by a defendant in such a case does not rise to the level of a violation of due process: To say the United States Constitution is infringed simply because this type of evidence may be prejudicial and limiting instructions inadequate to vitiate prejudicial effects, would make inroads into this entire complex code of state criminal evidentiary law, and would threaten other large areas of trial jurisprudence. . . . This type of prejudicial effect is acknowledged to inhere in criminal practice, but it is justified on the grounds that (1) the jury is expected to follow instructions in limiting this evidence to its proper function, and (2) the convenience of trying different crimes against the same person . . . in the same trial is a valid governmental interest. Id. at 562. The Court noted that the defendant’s interests are also protected by the discretion of the trial court to limit or forbid the admission of particularly prejudicial evidence. See id. Furthermore, courts have observed that where documentary evidence is used, as it is in Ohio,6 to prove the prior crime, such evidence is seldom, if ever, so inflammatory that the jury will be unable to follow instructions to disregard any inclination to convict a defendant based upon conduct committed in a past criminal episode. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135 (1968). Left to our own devices, we might well remain skeptical, despite the wealth of settled law, about the degree to which Ohio’s joinder provisions undercut the protection afforded a capital defendant by Ohio Revised Code § 2929.022(A), especially given the heightened concerns regarding undue prejudice in a capital case. Nevertheless, a habeas corpus proceeding is not an appropriate vehicle for this court to substitute its own judgment for that of the State of Ohio. “[A] state rule of law does not run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at bar.” Spencer, 385 U.S. at 564 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the denial of Davis’s motion for severance did not constitute a denial of the petitioner’s due process right to a fair trial, that ruling cannot be said to have rendered his waiver of a jury trial involuntary. 6 Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.75(B) provides that, whenever the prosecution must prove the existence of a prior conviction, it is sufficient to provide a certified copy of the entry of judgment for the prior conviction, accompanied by evidence to identify the named defendant as the offender in the present case. See State v. Blonski, 707 N.E.2d 1168, 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997); State v. Day, 651 N.E.2d 52, 54 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). Although the state must introduce evidence that the individual named in the proffered judgment entry is in fact the defendant then on trial, it must do so in a manner that does not allow the jury to hear details of the prior conviction. See Blonski, 707 N.E.2d at 1172. No. 02-3227 Davis v. Coyle Page 15
On remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for resentencing, the petitioner also moved to withdraw his jury waiver on the ground that it was not knowing and intelligent because he did not anticipate the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Penix, which was decided while Davis’s case was still on direct appeal. The court held in Penix that a capital defendant who is sentenced by a jury in the first instance 7becomes ineligible for the death penalty following reversal of that sentence. See 513 N.E.2d at 748. Davis now argues in effect that he should have been allowed to withdraw his jury waiver prior to resentencing because reimposition of the death sentence by the three-judge panel was a violation of his right to equal protection of the laws, given that a defendant originally sentenced to death by a jury would not have been eligible for imposition of the same sentence on remand. In Davis IV, 584 N.E.2d at 1196, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed this claim as follows: In his fifth proposition of law, appellant challenges the constitutionality of our holding in Davis [II], supra, which permitted the three-judge panel to consider reimposing the death penalty on remand. Appellant argues that our holding in Davis [II] is unconstitutional since a defendant whose death sentence is vacated following a jury trial would not similarly be subject to the death penalty upon sentencing remand. See State v. Penix, . . . 513 N.E.2d 744 [(1987)]. In effect, appellant requests that we reconsider our holding in Davis [II] in which we distinguished Penix. However, we decline appellant’s invitation, at this time, to revisit our basic holding in Davis [II]. As an initial matter, we note that this ruling is not a decision on the merits and, therefore, that the AEDPA standard of review set out in § 2254 does not apply to this claim. See Newton v. Million, 349 F.3d 873, 878 (6th Cir. 2003). When the state courts do not assess the merits of a petitioner’s claims, the federal habeas court need not extend the deference otherwise due under AEDPA. See id. Instead, the habeas court reviews de novo questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. See id. When a law seeks to regulate an individual’s fundamental rights or distinguishes between individuals on the basis of certain suspect characteristics, the statute is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. See Mass. Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 (1976). Davis clearly does not belong to a “suspect class” for equal protection purposes, however. Federal courts have consistently held that prisoners do not constitute such a class, see Hadix v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 840, 843 (6th Cir. 2000), nor do capital defendants. See Tigner v. Cockrell, 264 F.3d 521, 526 (5th Cir. 2001); Pitsonbarger v. Bramley, 141 F.3d. 728, 739 (7th Cir. 1998). Nor has Davis’s fundamental right to have his punishment determined by a jury yet been implicated in this matter. In the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 602 (2002), the Court did recognize that Sixth Amendment jurisprudence now requires that a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt, any fact necessary to increase a defendant’s authorized punishment.8 Ring, however, post-dates not only the petitioner’s sentencing and resentencing, but 7 The Ohio legislature subsequently amended Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.06 to provide for reimposition of the death penalty in cases tried to a jury after the effective date of the amendment. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.06(B). 8 Obviously, Ring’s mandates would apply only in situations in which the criminal defendant did not exercise the prerogative to waive the constitutional right to a jury trial. See, e.g., United States v. Ashe, 47 F.3d 770, 775-76 (6th Cir. 1995) (“Any right, even a constitutional right, may be surrendered . . . if that waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily.”). No. 02-3227 Davis v. Coyle Page 16 also the denial of habeas relief by the district court. Consequently, the state courts cannot be faulted for failing to analyze Davis’s motion to withdraw his jury waiver under a fundamental-rightsanalysis when the right in question had yet to be recognized by the Supreme Court in the context raised by the petitioner. Furthermore, the decisions of the Ohio state courts in refusing to grant the petitioner’s withdrawal motion cannot be successfully attacked as violating the rational basis prong of an equal protection analysis. In order to succeed in such a challenge, Davis must demonstrate that there is no conceivable basis sufficient to sustain the statute, “even if there is no indication that the suggested rationale actually motivated the legislature in enacting it.” Innes v. Howell Corp., 76 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir. 1996). In denying Davis the habeas corpus relief he sought, the district judge noted that a sound, rational basis did indeed exist in this case for the different treatment of defendants resentenced after jury trials and those resentenced after trials before three-judge panels. According to the district court, “[t]here are obvious difficulties presented in trying to reassemble the original trial jury to participate in a resentencing hearing.” By contrast, “the three judges who comprised the original panel in the petitioner’s case were still available to resentence the petitioner.” Because such a distinction is arguably rational, we must conclude that Davis’s equal protection challenge to the original denial of his motion to withdraw his jury waiver is without merit.