Opinion ID: 795103
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Attempt to Rehabilitate Prejudiced Petitioner

Text: 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.