Opinion ID: 5648768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issue #5: voir dire

Text: We also reject Cunningham’s argument that the trial court improperly constrained defense counsel’s latitude to question prospective jurors about their willingness to consider specific mitigating factors. At trial, the court allowed Cunningham’s lawyer to question members of the venire about whether they would automatically vote for the death penalty and whether they were willing to consider fairly all mitigating factors, sentencing options, and available evidence. R. 194-1 (Trial Tr. at 327–31) (Page ID #9502–06). The trial court, however, barred defense counsel from asking the prospective jurors about the type of mitigating factors that they would consider in voting against the death penalty. Id. at 422–25 (Page ID #9597–600). On direct appeal, Cunningham argued that the trial court’s restrictions on questioning likely resulted in the seating of a juror who would automatically impose the death penalty. See Cunningham II, 824 N.E.2d at 513. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that defense counsel waived this argument “by failing to challenge any seated juror’s views on capital punishment.” Nos. 11-3005/20-3429 Cunningham v. Shoop Page 44 Id. The state high court also rejected Cunningham’s claim as meritless. See id. at 513–14. Cunningham reraised this claim in his federal habeas petition. R. 19-3 (Habeas Pet. at 23) (Page ID #85). Because the Ohio Supreme Court failed to clearly and expressly rely on a procedural bar, any procedural default is excused. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 (1989). Extending § 2254(d)(1) deference to the state high court’s merits decision, we reject Cunningham’s argument. Trial courts must ensure that jurors will not automatically vote for the death penalty. See Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 734–36 (1992). Others have argued to this court that a trial judge violates this constitutional precept when they prohibit questions about specific mitigating factors during voir dire. See Hodges v. Colson, 727 F.3d 517, 528–29 (6th Cir. 2013); Bedford v. Collins, 567 F.3d 225, 232–33 (6th Cir. 2009); Dennis v. Mitchell, 354 F.3d 511, 523–25 (6th Cir. 2003). Just as we rejected that argument in those habeas cases, we do not grant relief to Cunningham here.