Court Opinion

ID: 9497392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:50:16.770011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:10.196881
License: Public Domain

CLAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Contrary to the majority’s disposition, prosecutorial misconduct in the state court trial should entitle Petitioner to a new mitigation phase trial.1 Due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt, Petitioner is not entitled to a new guilt phase trial. I will first explain how the prosecution made numerous statements that were improper on various separate grounds, and secondly will explain why this was prejudicial.
I.
The prosecution repeatedly violated three rules during the closing argument of the guilt phase of the trial — which will be made clear after the applicable rules are set forth.
First, this Court has stated that “appeals to the jury to act as the community conscience” are per se impermissible, when “calculated to incite the passions and prejudices of the jurors.” United States v. Solivan, 937 F.2d 1146, 1151 (6th Cir.1991). The prosecution has a right to cast the defendant as a villain, but the prosecution may not pressure the jury to uphold its role as righteous executioners — and the prosecution is strictly forbidden from sug*225gesting to the jury that harsh treatment of one particular defendant will help to solve a larger societal- problem. . The specific societal issue in Solivan was the use of drugs.
Second, under Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 179-81, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), the prosecution is prohibited from arguing for the death penalty during the guilt phase of the trial. Commingling the guilt phase' with the capital sentencing question encourages the jury to view the case as a single entity; in a case, such as this one, with overwhelming evidence of guilt, the jury is discouraged from drawing a distinction between its guilt phase trial verdict and its sentencing recommendation. The prosecutor gains an unfair advantage by getting a head , start on his argument for the death penalty, which causes the jury2 to enter the mitigation phase of the trial with preconceptions as to sentencing.
Third, when addressing the jury, “[t]he prosecutor has a duty not to misrepresent the law....” Hung Thanh Le v. Mullin, 311 F.3d 1002, 1022 (10th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Ollivierre, No. 03-4802, 2004 U.S.App. LEXIS 16681, at *12 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2004) (published).
During the closing argument of the guilt phase of the trial, these three rules were violated continually and to an extreme degree. In numerous instances in the closing argument of the guilt phase trial, prosecuting attorney Claude N. Crowe repeatedly, and over objection, argued for a death sentence, pressuring the jury to serve as a community conscience by sentencing Petitioner to death, to send a message to the community regarding the larger societal problem of drug use.
Early in the closing argument of the guilt phase trial, Crowe began arguing that a death sentence would send a message to the community that would deter cocaine use:
MR. CROWE: We are trying to take this man’s life.
MR. RUEGER [HICKS’ COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor, that has no place in this particular matter.
■ THE COURT: This Court leaves a lot of latitude in final argument. The jury knows what the evidence is and the Court will instruct the jury on the law. Proceed.
MR. CROWE: ... We all said the death penalty serves a purpose. Some of you have 'said retribution is a valid reason, some of you said deterrent!3] I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, it is time you sent a message to the community. That this is no excuse.
MR. RUEGER: Judge, I object to that this is highly improper and I have to make a motion for a mistrial.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. The motion for a mistrial is denied.
Proceed, Mr. Crowe.
MR. CROWE: Consider deterrents [sic — deterrence] ... when you think about cocaine, the devil the cocaine.
(J.A. at 2779-84.)
Crowe’s statements here urged the jury to recommend a death sentence for the purpose of “sen[ding] a message to the community” that drug use will not be tolerated, i.e., a message of “deterrence” regarding “the devil cocaine.” Crowe urged the jury to “sen[d] a message to the com*226munity,” by “tak[ing] [Petitioner’s] life.” Crowe was not asking the jury to send a message that would deter murder; he was not arguing that sentencing Petitioner to death would send any general message of deterrence to potential murderers, whose possible crimes may involve vastly different types of victims, motivations, and circumstances. What Crowe wanted was a message that would deter cocaine use. Sentencing a cocaine user to death, for a murder that was inextricably tied to cocaine use — Petitioner was intoxicated by cocaine at the time of both murders, and the first murder was motivated by the desire to steal money that would be used to buy more cocaine — would “sen[d] a message to the community” that the penalties for cocaine use can be extremely severe. This is the “deterrence” that Crowe clearly referenced, when he said: “Consider deterrents [sic — deterrence] ... when you think about cocaine, the devil the cocaine.”
Crowe’s statements regarding sending a message to deter cocaine use were highly improper. In Solivan, this Court remanded the case for a new trial, based upon the prosecutor’s similar drug deterrence argument. In that case, the prosecutor argued, in his closing statement, “I’m asking you to tell her and all of the other drug dealers like her — (defense counsel’s objection and Court’s response omitted) — [t]hat we don’t want that stuff in Northern Kentucky and that anybody who brings that stuff in Northern Kentucky....” 937 F.2d at 1148 (emphasis in original). Crowe’s statements about addressing the community-level problem of drug use were directly in violation of Solivan. If Crowe’s statements were slightly less outrageous than those in Solivan, then Crowe’s rhetoric was also far more impassioned, referencing “the devil cocaine.” Here, as in Solivan, the attempt to use the particular case before the jury to address the larger societal problem of drug use constituted “an appeal wholly irrelevant to any facts or issues in the case, the purpose and effect of which could have only been to arouse passion and prejudice.” Id. at 1151 (characterizing Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 237-38, 63 S.Ct. 561, 87 L.Ed. 734 (1943)).
In improperly urging the jury to act as the community conscience by using this particular case to promote “deterrence” of cocaine use, Crowe misrepresented the law to the jury. In Solivan, the prosecutor’s comments were improper solely because they urged the jury to serve as the community conscience. But the comments in Solivan did not misstate the law — the jury was authorized to punish the defendant for drug trafficking because the charged offenses were drug crimes. By contrast, in the instant case, Petitioner was not charged with any drug offense. Crowe’s deterrence argument asked the jury to treat Petitioner harshly, so as to send a message that would deter cocaine use; this request to impose a harsh sentence based upon cocaine use carried with it the necessary and obvious implication that under Ohio law a jury is authorized to consider drug use as an aggravating factor in sentencing for a capital crime. This implication was patently false. Under Ohio law, the jury is not permitted to consider drug use as an aggravating factor in capital sentencing. Ohio’s capital sentencing scheme contains a finite list of aggravating factors, and cocaine use (or the use of other drugs or alcohol) is not one of them. Ohio Rev.Code § 2929.04(A). Crowe misrepresented the law to the jury, by indicating that a death sentence could be justified, in part, by Petitioner’s use of cocaine.
This misrepresentation of Ohio law was extensive. Crowe continually attempted to draw the improper, unfounded implication that cocaine use can be an aggravating factor in capital sentencing. Later in the closing argument of the guilt phase trial, *227Crowe again repeatedly referenced the jury’s alleged duty to send Petitioner, to death, at least in part due to his drug use:
I don’t want there to be any question in your mind what your duty is in this case. There was no question in his mind what he wanted the result to be [in committing the murders]. And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, he forfeited his right to1 life at that point in time. All for devil cocaine. The devil cocaine is not a defense ....
As difficult as it may be to face what must be done in this case....
The people in this community have the right to expect that you will do your duty.
(J.A. at 2788-92.)
Crowe was improperly arguing that “the devil cocaine” could, be considered as a reason for the jury to conclude, that Petitioner “forfeited his right to life.”. Crowe may have tried to clean up his language by mentioning that cocaine intoxication is not a defense.4 But by the time he said this it was too late — Crowe had just finished drawing the link between cocaine use and the death sentence. Moreover, soon after referencing the fact that cocaine intoxication was not a defense, Crowe returned to his message that a death sentence was appropriate — urging jurors to do “what must be done,” their “duty,” even though it would be “difficult.” Needless to say, Crowe was urging jurors to recommend a death sentence. (There is nothing “difficult” about merely finding, a defendant guilty of crimes to which he had confessed.) This intimation that the “devil cocaine” could be considered as a reason to recommend a death sentence was a misrepresentation of Ohio law.
Crowe used this particular case as a vehicle to further the larger social agenda of drug déterrence. Based upon Crowe’s arguments, the guilt phase was not about determining Petitioner’s guilt — it was about something more, i.e., achieving a death sentence. And the sentence was not solely about punishment — it was about something more, i.e., condemnation of “the devil cocaine.” Because Crowe obviously saw his ultimate goal of deterring cocaine use as extremely important, the ends justified the means, resulting in a misrepresentation of the law, i.e., Crowe’s encouraging the jury to consider cocaine use' as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Each of Crowe’s breaches of the rules appear to fit together as part of the larger plan.
Crowe characterized the central issue in this case as being that of cocaine use; cocaine was the aggravating circumstance that could convince the jury to recommend a death sentence. During the closing argument of the guilt phase trial, when Crowe began to refute the cocaine defense, Crowe characterized Petitioner’s mindset as follows: “The most iiiiportant thing is craving for more cocaine. Well, that is right. The most important thing in his life is the craving of cocaine and not the well being of other human beings.” (J.A. at 2788.) These comments did not refute the defense of cocaine intoxication. If anything, the comments supported, the defense of- cocaine intoxication by twice referring to the “craving” of cocaine. Such language could have suggested that Petitioner had lost control at the time of the crimes and lacked the requisite mens rea. Clearly, *228Crowe was not discussing guilt; he was trying to convince the jury to recommend a death sentence. When Crowe said, “The most important thing in his life is the craving of cocaine and not the well being of other human beings,” this statement was not limited to Petitioner; the statement was an indictment of cocaine users, generally. In Crowe’s view, the use of cocaine was “a conscious decision which they make.” (J.A. 2783-84) (emphasis added). “They” — cocaine users, generally — were on trial, not just Petitioner.
Crowe saw the case quite clearly. This was the opportunity to “sen[d] a message” to potential users of “the devil cocaine,” that “they” would be held accountable. Drug convictions do not carry death sentences; thus they offer less of an opportunity to make an example of a defendant. But this case was different. This was a referendum. The next time a potential user felt a “craving” for cocaine, he would think twice before making the “.conscious decision” to use the drug — he would realize that the drug had caused Petitioner to “forfeit[] his right to life.” The goal of the trial was not to find the facts but rather to “try[ ] to take [Petitioner’s] life,” in the service of a higher purpose — “deterrence” of cocaine use. The “community ha[d] the right to expect that” jurors would do their solemn “duty,” to help win the war on drugs.
Crowe’s pervasive message was highly improper in attempting to invoke the community conscience to such a degree. But what made the conduct especially egregious was that Crowe overstepped the boundary between the guilt and mitigation phases by encouraging the jury to prejudge the sentencing decision before Petitioner’s attorney had the opportunity to address the penalty issue. By so doing, Crowe pressured the jury to ignore governing Ohio law under which drug use cannot be considered as an aggravating factor in capital sentencing. Crowe violated certain clear, fundamental rules that constrain prosecutorial advocacy.
The attempt to invoke improper considerations did not end with the guilt phase. During the closing argument of the penalty phase, Crowe’s colleague, John J. Arnold stated, “It is the people of the State of Ohio who have determined that in a case such as this death may be an appropriate decision. And finally I suppose it is — I don’t know if you want to call it fate, God, a deity or something who has determined that there will be a just punishment for this man.” (J.A. at 2924.) The majority acknowledges that this violated Petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights. Sandoval v. Calderon, 241 F.3d at 776 (“In a capital case like this one, the prosecution’s invocation of higher law or extrajudicial authority violates the Eighth Amendment....”). Taken alone, Arnold’s statement could be overlooked. But the comment must be viewed as part of the prosecution’s improper continuing attempt to sermonize about the larger purposes and ideals that would be served by Petitioner’s receiving a death sentence.
II.
The prosecution’s improper statements were prejudicial. The standard for prejudice is whether the improper remarks were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” i.e., whether there is a “reasonable possibility” that the error might have contributed to the result being challenged. Solivan, 937 F.2d at 1155.
There is no need to answer the question of whether any of the prosecution’s improper remarks might have been prejudicial, taken individually. Individual instances of prosecutorial misconduct can be *229cumulated.5 (Actually, different types of constitutional errors can even be cumulat-ed, in a capital case;6 but the prosecutorial misconduct issue in the instant case need not rely on that rule.)
In DePew v. Anderson, in cumulating numerous errors to vacate a death sentence, this Court made clear that in capital cases it is more difficult for the prosecution to demonstrate a lack of prejudice:
Members of the Supreme Court have advised us to remember that “death is different” — that “[t]he taking of life is irrevocable,” so that “[i]t is in capital cases especially that the balance of conflicting interests must be weighed most heavily in favor of the procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights,” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 45-46, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and that “[i]n death cases doubts ... should be resolved in favor of the accused.” Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 752, 68 S.Ct. 880, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948). In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 329, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), the Court decided that a prosecutor’s prejudicial statements in closing argument rendered the death sentence invalid. It applied a stricter standard in assessing the validity of closing argument in death cases relying on the Court’s admonition in California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 998-99, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983), that under the Eighth Amendment “the qualitative difference of death from all other punishments requires a correspondingly greater degree of scrutiny in capital sentencing determinations.”
311 F.3d 742, 751 (6th Cir.2002).
Under the heightened scrutiny in a capital case that DePew requires, the prosecution’s improper statements prove prejudicial when viewed cumulatively. There is a reasonable possibility that the jury’s sentencing recommendation was influenced by the improper statements; this can be demonstrated by virtue of comparison with Solivan.
In Solivan, this Court reversed convictions and sentence and remanded the case for new trial because improper prosecuto-rial remarks had been prejudicial. A comparison reveals that, on all accounts, Petitioner’s case for granting a new mitigation phase trial is either comparable to or stronger than the argument for a new trial in Solivan. Here, as in Solivan, the improper remarks were “calculated to incite the passions and prejudices of the jury.” 937 F.2d at 1151. In Solivan, there was only one statement appealing to the community conscience. In the instant case, as recounted above, there were numerous separate statements appealing to community conscience. In Solivan, as in the instant case, the prosecution improperly suggested that the jury use the case to send a message of deterrence regarding the larger societal problem of illegal drug use.
The Solivan Court considered the inflammatory nature of the comments made by the prosecution and also “[b]oth the *230timing and the firmness of the trial court’s” curative instruction. 937 F.2d at 1157. The Solivan Court noted that there was a substantial delay before the trial judge offered a curative instruction — after the objection, there was a conference between the trial judge and the attorneys for both sides — and there was no firm rebuke by the trial judge. Id. Because each of these factors suggested prejudice, the error could not be deemed harmless. Id. In the instant case, there were never any curative instructions; after sustaining an objection regarding Crowe’s call for the jury to “sen[d] a message to the community,” the trial judge simply allowed Crowe to proceed with his closing argument. Additionally, as explained above, in the instant case — but not in Solivan — the prosecutor misstated the law (by suggesting that drug use could factor into the sentencing recommendation). Finally, Solivan was not a capital case; thus, DePew’s heightened scrutiny of prejudice in a capital case was not applicable in Solivan.
Overall, then, there is nothing in Soli-van that would weigh more strongly in favor of post-conviction relief than the circumstances in the instant case. And at least four factors suggest prejudice more strongly in the instant case than in Soli-van: (1) the appeals to community conscience were more numerous in the instant case than in Solivan; (2) the trial judge offered no curative instructions in the instant case, as opposed to a delayed curative instruction in Solivan; (3) unlike Solivan, the instant case involved misrepresentation of law to the jury; and (4) unlike Solivan, the instant case is a capital case.
Solivan makes clear that strong evidence of guilt can provide a reason for a finding that improper prosecutorial statements were harmless. 937 F.2d at 1156.7 Yet this principle cannot be applied to demonstrate a lack of prejudice in the instant case. In Solivan, the prosecutorial misconduct was so egregious that the conviction — i.e., the jury’s fact-finding — was reversed. In the instant case, where the impropriety was worse than in Solivan, for the above-mentioned reasons, in sentencing the jury was required not merely to engage in objective fact-finding but rather to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors. There is no basis for speculating that the jury’s weighing function was unaffected by the prosecution’s polemics.
Under Ohio law, the prosecution has “the burden of proving, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstances the defendant was found guilty of committing are sufficient to outweigh the factors in mitigation of the imposition of the sentence of death.” Ohio Rev.Code § 2929.03(D)(1). The jury is not permitted to recommend a death sentence unless it “unanimously finds, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors.” Id. § 2929.03(D)(2). The death penalty cannot be imposed in Ohio, unless the jury has given its unanimous recommendation. Id. Hence, synthesizing all of the applicable standards, all that is needed to show prejudice is the demonstration of a reasonable possibility that, absent the improper statements, at least one juror would have declined to find that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.
The jury was presented with various forms of mitigation evidence in this case. In its review of the case, the Supreme *231Court of Ohio explained that at sentencing Petitioner had presented numerous pieces of evidence that were relevant to mitigation. The Supreme Court of Ohio pointed out that Petitioner “turned himself in, waived extradition, and cooperated with police. This factor tends to show re-morse_” State v. Hicks, 538 N.E.2d 1030, 1039, 43 Ohio St.3d 72, 80 (Ohio 1989). In addition, contrary to Crowe’s representations to the jury that cocaine use was an aggravating factor (i.e., Crowe’s deterrence argument), the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the cocaine use to be a mitigating factor. Id. (“The possibility that appellant was under the influence of drugs when he killed his victims should be assigned some weight in mitigation.”).8 Also, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that various other types of mitigation evidence had been presented, including evidence that Petitioner had a learning disability, evidence of Petitioner’s troubled childhood in which his father had possibly been an alcoholic, and evidence of Petitioner’s reputation among co-workers as having good character and a strong work ethic. Id.
In light of the presentation of mitigation evidence, there is no basis for a determination that the prosecution’s extensive improper statements did not influence the jury in a function, the weighing of factors, that is inherently discretionary. To weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, the jury must decide what relative value to assign to each factor. The prosecution’s comments advocated improper values for jurors to use, in their weighing function. Crowe forcefully pushed the jury to value the community’s stake in deterrence of cocaine use, in sentencing a defendant who was not being tried for a drug crime. The trial judge gave no curative instructions to blunt the impact of these improper remarks. Given the extensive nature of Crowe’s improper statements, a conclusion that there was no prejudice here would require more speculation than DePew permits in a capital case.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully dissent as to the issue of prose-cutorial misconduct, and I would vacate and remand for a new mitigation phase trial. Due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt, I concur that the improper prose-cutorial statements did not prejudice Petitioner in the guilt phase of his trial, and *232thus I ■ would affirm the district court’s denial of a new guilt phase trial.

. Because I believe that prosecutorial misconduct is the dispositive issue, I do not take a position on any of the other issues raised in this case, except to say that no issue warrants a new guilt phase trial.

. The same jury serves in both the guilt and sentencing phases. Ohio Rev.Code § 2929.03(D)(2) ("the trial jury” is responsible for capital sentencing recommendations).

. The prosecution referenced voir dire, here.

. Crowe was, of course, entitled to refute the argument that cocaine intoxication was a defense; Crowe was entitled to argue that the effects of cocaine use had not diminished Petitioner’s capacity to act purposely, with intent, under the definition of aggravated murder. Ohio Rev.Code §§ 2901.22(A) (definition of "purposely”), 2903.01(A) (mens rea for aggravated murder).

. Lundy v. Campbell, 888 F.2d 467, 474-75 (6th Cir.1989) (citing Angel v. Overberg, 682 F.2d 605, 608 (6th Cir.1982) (en banc)). See also United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (“the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed within the context of the entire trial''), 12 ("the remarks must be examined within the context of the trial to determine whether the prosecutor’s behavior amounted to prejudicial error”).

. In DePew v. Anderson, constitutional errors that might have been harmless, taken individually, were cumulated by this Court, leading to a reversal of a death sentence. 311 F.3d 742, 751 (6th Cir.2002).

. Due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including Petitioner's police confession, the result of the guilt phase trial need not be disturbed.

. The court considered cocaine use to be relevant to at least one of the mitigation factors. The court may have reasoned that cocaine addiction was "a mental disease or defect” that caused a criminal to "lack[] substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the offender's conduct or to conform the offender's conduct to the requirements of the law.” Ohio Rev.Code § 2929.04(B)(3). In the alternative, cocaine use could be considered under the residual catch-all provision for mitigating factors. Id. § 2929.04(B)(7) ("Any other factors that are relevant to the issue of whether the offender should be sentenced to death" may be considered to the extent that they "weigh against the aggravating circumstances”).
At sentencing, Crowe had the right to refute the argument that cocaine use should be a strong mitigating factor. But such refutation could only occur after Petitioner’s counsel had made the mitigation argument. Instead, Crowe preempted Petitioner’s counsel, by raising the topic of sentencing during the guilt phase trial, before Petitioner's counsel had made any mitigation argument. Thus, Crowe’s message could not be interpreted as a rebuttal of a mitigation factor. During the guilt phase trial, Crowe was not refuting the notion that cocaine use provided a justification for a less harsh sentence. Crowe’s guilt phase trial argument as to deterrence was a clear message that the cocaine use was a reason to treat Petitioner more harshly. It was improper to make this argument, because under Ohio law there is no aggravating factor that could possibly be construed to include cocaine use.