88 F.4th 1147
6th Cir.2023Background
- Clarence Mack was convicted of aggravated murder in a 1991 carjacking in Cleveland, Ohio, and sentenced to death, largely on the basis of ballistics evidence and testimony from Timothy Willis.
- Mack's conviction and sentence were affirmed at all appellate levels in Ohio, and his post-conviction petitions for relief were denied by both state and federal courts.
- Mack filed a federal habeas corpus petition raising claims that prosecutors suppressed evidence (Brady claim), introduced false testimony, his counsel was constitutionally ineffective, and exclusion of testimony denied him a fair trial.
- The district court denied Mack’s federal habeas petition, and the Sixth Circuit reviewed this denial under the strict standards of AEDPA.
- The central factual question was whether suppressed or improperly excluded evidence—or defense counsel error—undermined confidence in the jury’s verdict given strong forensic evidence implicating Mack.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial suppression of evidence | State withheld exculpatory/impeachment material in violation of Brady | Evidence provided, immaterial, unfavorably cumulative, or non-existent | No Brady violation; suppression or prejudice not shown |
| Prosecution introduced false testimony | State knowingly elicited false testimony from Willis (about plea deal, etc.) | No evidence prosecutor knew testimony was false or material | No due process violation; claim not proven |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to argue actual innocence based on forensic theory | Claim procedurally barred; argument not supported by trial evidence | Procedural default not excused; claim barred and meritless |
| Exclusion of testimony deprived fair trial | Key defense testimonies wrongly excluded | Testimony lacked foundation, no prejudice from exclusion | No fundamental unfairness or due process violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence by prosecution violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence in Brady claims)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (defines standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference means federal habeas relief only if no fairminded jurist could agree with state court decision)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution’s knowing use of false testimony violates due process)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (limits on when exclusion of evidence rises to constitutional violation)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (federal review barred by adequate and independent state procedural ground)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) (actual innocence: high bar for excusing default in capital cases)