Cleveland Jackson v. Marc Houk, 687 F.3d 723

Jackson was convicted of two murders in Lima, Ohio in 2002 and received two death sentences; one sentence was later vacated on direct appeal due to voir dire error, the other remained.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed only the Jayla Grant murder sentence for voir dire abuse and remanded for resentencing, leaving the Williams sentence intact.
Jackson sought federal habeas relief under AEDPA; the district court denied, and appellate review was granted on nine claims, including venue/voir dire issues and ineffective assistance.
The pretrial publicity in Lima was extensive and the trial occurred in a small community, with Cunningham’s prior trial having just concluded.
The district court and state court decisions relied on Mu’Min v. Virginia and later Skilling v. United States to defer to trial court voir dire, limiting appellate review.
The court addresses whether the trial court violated due process by denying a change of venue while restricting voir dire on publicity and bias, among other claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change of venue and voir dire scope	Jackson contends venue denial and voir dire limits violated due process.	State asserts Mu’Min/Skilling deference to trial court voir dire; no due process violation.	No due process violation; deferential standard applied to voir dire and venue decision.
Voir dire on bias against child-killers	Defense sought to question jurors about bias against child victims; trial court erred by limiting this.	State argues limited voir dire complied with governing standards and was permissible.	Abuse of discretion; Ohio Supreme Court vacated Jayla Grant sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Death-penalty views and juror qualification	Defense challenged retention/exclusion of jurors based on death-penalty views and sought rehabilitation.	State contends Witt deference and that jurors’ responses met constitutional standards.	No AEDPA error; the state court’s approach did not violate clearly established law.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed in several respects during guilt and penalty phases and cross-examination.	State courts reasonably applied Strickland and AEDPA; no prejudice shown.	State court reasonably applied Strickland; habeas relief denied for these claims.

Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1991) (deference to trial judge in voir dire and pretrial publicity; limits to exploratory inquiries)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (U.S. 2010) (reaffirms Mu’Min; high deference to trial court in pretrial publicity cases)
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (U.S. 1963) (presumption of prejudice from pervasive publicity requiring change of venue)
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1965) (pervasive media coverage may render a trial unfair)
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1966) (carnival atmosphere; publicity may undermine fairness)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of prejudice for jurors in biased contexts)
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1968) (death-penalty juror exclusion framework)
Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2007) (death penalty juror exclusion and deference under AEDPA)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (preserves deference to trial judge on juror bias questions)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1992) (adequate voir dire essential to identify unqualified jurors)