Amos v. Renico
683 F.3d 720
6th Cir.2012Background
- Amos, a Michigan state prisoner, was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and murder by poisoning, sentenced to two life terms without parole.
- Michigan appeals affirmed the first-degree murder conviction but remanded for single-conviction language; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
- Amos sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; district court held abeyance to exhaust state remedies and later denied relief on several claims.
- Amos raised prosecutorial misconduct, due process, and ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims; some were deemed procedurally defaulted.
- The district court reviewed under AEDPA deference and applied standard de novo review for mixed questions of law and fact; this court affirmed the district court's denial.
- Ama s timely sought appellate review with a certificate of appealability on three claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct: false testimony/withholding evidence | Amos asserts Dr. Kanluen testified falsely and that evidence was improperly withheld. | State contends no false testimony or favorable withheld evidence; claims fail on facts. | No reversible error; claims lack merit. |
| Improper remarks and due process under Slagle test | Amos argues that improper remarks prejudiced trial and violated due process. | State argues remarks were isolated, cured by injunctive instructions, and not prejudicial. | Claims not satisfied; no due-process violation. |
| Notice and opportunity to challenge Loftus testimony (due process) | Amos contends lack of notice/opp. to be heard on Loftus ruling violated due process. | State argues Amos had meaningful opportunity; claim defaulted or not cognizable as federal due process. | Lack of notice claim not meritorious; due-process claim defaulted or not proven. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (investigation/experts) | Amos claims counsel failed to investigate and call experts to counter Dr. Kanluen. | State argues claims defaulted; prejudice not shown; evidence would not contradict Kanluen’s testimony. | Procedurally defaulted; no prejudice shown; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibbetts v. Bradshaw, 633 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2011) (AEDPA deference standard and de novo review of questions of law and mixed questions of fact)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (reasonable-doubt standard for § 2254(d) review; factual determinations under § 2254(d)(2))
- Slagle v. Bagley, 457 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006) (prosecutorial-misconduct due-process factors; assessing flagrant misconduct)
- Cosgrove v. United States, 637 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2011) (prosecutorial arguments from evidence; reasonable inferences at closing)
- Brown v. Bobby, 656 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2011) (due process and notice/participation considerations in state-court proceedings)
- Skinner v. McLemore, 425 F. App’x 491 (6th Cir. 2011) (collateral estoppel and defaulted state grounds; appellants’ relief)