Opinion ID: 780740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on unanimous verdict

Text: 68 The court also finds it objectionable that the verdict forms reflected a unanimity requirement in finding that the aggravating circumstances do not outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Again, this court has held repeatedly that requiring unanimity as to the results of the weighing process does not offend due process. Roe, 316 F.3d 557, 2002 WL 31426248 at ; Coe, 161 F.3d at 338. 69 It is difficult to say what the court's argument is at all. Its conclusion is that there is an inescapable likelihood that the jury in this case understood the instructions to require unanimity in both its ultimate and interim conclusions.... Page 690. However, there are only two places where a unanimity requirement has been held to be unconstitutional: (1) to reject the death penalty, and (2) as to the presence of a mitigating factor. Reviewing the instructions in total, there is not a word that would lead any reasonable juror to understand that unanimity was required in these two instances. The court would require that trial courts spell this out. Indeed, Ohio now requires its trial courts to instruct juries that one juror has the ability to block the death penalty. However, that is a matter of state law, not federal law. In fact, both this court and the Supreme Court [have] chastised such instructions as encouraging deadlock and undermining the strong governmental interest in unanimous verdicts. Roe, 316 F.3d 557, 2002 WL 31426248 at  (quoting Scott, 209 F.3d at 877); Scott, 209 F.3d at 877 (citing Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 382-84, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (2000)). 70 The trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigating and aggravating factors, in accordance with Ohio law at the time and with our court's cases, both before and since. These instructions occupied pages 1869-75 and 1881-90 of the transcript. 71 The trial court then began to explain the actual verdict forms. As is required by law, it noted that a verdict recommending death required unanimity as to the existence of aggravating factors, unanimously found by the jury (which it had already done, in its penalty phase determinations), that, in the opinion of each juror, outweighed the mitigating factors. The trial court had previously instructed the jury on finding mitigating factors, with no unanimity mentioned. 72 The trial court then explained the verdict forms recommending life imprisonment. Again, the trial court truthfully told the jury that such a verdict required each juror to agree to it. It would have been a falsehood for the judge to tell the jury that it could return a verdict recommending life with parole in 20 years, or life with parole in 30 years, without each juror signing that form. 73 That is all that the judge did; and he was completely truthful and legally correct in so doing. This discussion occupies 60 lines of transcript at pages 1890-92. 74 Finally, having concluded the discussion of the verdict forms, the judge simply reinforced the correct statement of the law that a verdict had to be unanimous. This use of the words to reach a decision all twelve of you must be in agreement was 70 lines 1 and a recess away from the instruction on finding and weighing mitigating factors, as opposed to the 17-word distance that the Third Circuit found acceptable, and wildly different from the 7-word distance that the court found unconstitutional in Frey (albeit before AEDPA and thus not under the more stringent standard established by that law). 75 As nearly as I can gather, the court's complaint is that the judge did not instruct the jury to the effect that any one of you can prevent the imposition of the death penalty on this defendant, simply by refusing to sign the death verdict. You can do so for any reason or for no reason. While that is a correct statement of existential truth, no case, and certainly no Supreme Court case, has come close to requiring that such an instruction be given. 76 The court's opinion as to what a reasonable Ohio jury would believe from the instructions in this case is, in my opinion, a gross libel on the intelligence and understanding of those jurors. I therefore respectfully dissent. Notes: 1 As is obvious from his final response (page 690), Judge Merritt and I share a difference of opinion as to what is the Ohio trial court's unanimity instruction regarding mitigating factors. As I carefully explain above, the instructions are given at pages 1869-75 and 1881-90. The accurate recitation of the verdict forms occurs at transcript pages 1890-92. A correct reading of a constitutionally unexceptionable verdict form is not an instruction.