Campbell v. Bradshaw, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5735

Campbell was convicted of four counts of aggravated murder and related offenses in Ohio; death sentences were imposed after a penalty-phase trial.
On direct appeal, Ohio Supreme Court vacated the death sentence for allocution error and, on remand, reaffirmed the death sentence.
Campbell sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising twelve grounds, with four alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and one alleging preclusion of voluntary intoxication as mitigation.
The district court denied relief; Campbell appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reviews § 2254 determinations de novo with deferential standards.
Key penalty-phase issue facts include admission of Campbell’s incarceration records and extensive veteran mitigation evidence, including his juvenile history and alleged intoxication.
The court ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admitting incarceration records as penalty evidence	Campbell: admission was deficient performance and prejudicial.	Bradshaw: records were probative and part of defense strategy; not deficient or prejudicial.	No deficient performance or prejudice; strategy reasonable; no Strickland prejudice.
Failure to present juvenile incarceration mitigation	Campbell: more mitigation from juvenile history was necessary; counsel deficient.	Bradshaw: evidence was cumulative and overwhelming aggravation outweighed beneﬁts; no prejudice.	No prejudice; not an unreasonable application of Strickland.
Failure to move for a change of venue	Campbell: extensive pretrial publicity tainted jury; venue should have changed.	Bradshaw: voir dire ensured impartial jury; venue motion would have been denied; no prejudice.	No prejudice; state court reasonably applied Strickland.
Trial court prevented argument of voluntary intoxication as mitigation	Campbell: intoxication evidence should have been allowed as mitigating factor.	Bradshaw: court properly refused specific instruction; nonstatutory factors allowed generally.	Error in precluding argument; not shown to have substantial injurious effect; harmless.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (clear standard for § 2254(d) application)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (Supreme Court 2011) (unreasonable application standard; deferential review)
Pinholster v. Cullen, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (Supreme Court 2011) (record before state court governs § 2254(d) review)
Cunningham v. v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (Supreme Court 2011) (see Pinholster discussion; (note: use official cases; avoid non-authoritative repeats))
Sutton v. Bell, 645 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2011) (no prejudice where mitigation is cumulative or outweighed by aggravation)