United States Sixth Circuit

In a capital habeas case involving a petitioner convicted of aggravated murder of his son and sentenced to death, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) defendant's Brady claim is rejected as there is no reasonable probability that, had a certain police report been disclosed, the outcome would have been different; 2) defendant's ex post facto and due process violation claims are rejected; 3) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase claim is rejected; 4) defendant's Fifth Amendment violation claim based on prosecution's comment on his failure to testify is rejected; and 5) district court did not err in concluding that defendant procedurally defaulted two of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/05/2009
• Published 11/05/2009

Judges

• Before: ROGERS, SUTTON and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Keith A. Yeazel, Law Office, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Charles L. Wille, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Keith A. Yeazel, Law Office, Columbus, Ohio, James D. Owen, The Owen Law Firm, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.   Robert E. Prather, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.