United States Sixth Circuit

Denial of petition for habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance during the mitigation phase of defendant's sentencing by failing to retain certain experts or by providing the prosecution with documentary evidence of defendant's past antisocial behavior; 2) the jury was not improperly precluded from considering defendant's psychological age as mitigating evidence during sentencing; 3) the Ohio Court of Appeals' determination that defendant is not mentally retarded is not an unreasonable application of federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts; and 4) defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by the admission into evidence of numerous statements he made to the police.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/08/2009
• Published 01/08/2009

Judges

• Before:  NORRIS, COLE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Pamela J. Prude-Smithers, Ohio Public Defender's Office, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Holly E. LeClair, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Pamela J. Prude-Smithers, Kathryn L. Sandford, Ohio Public Defender's Office, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Holly E. LeClair, Charles L. Wille, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.