Edward Lang v. David Bobby
889 F.3d 803
6th Cir.2018Background
- In 2006 Edward Lang was tried in Ohio for two aggravated murders and an aggravated robbery; the jury convicted and recommended death for one murder and life for the other; the trial court imposed that sentence.
- During trial a seated juror (Juror 386) was revealed to be related by marriage to one of the victims; she was questioned, excused by agreement of the parties, and replaced before deliberations; the court asked the remaining jurors, as a group, whether she had discussed the case and took silence as a negative answer.
- At sentencing (separate mitigation phase) Lang’s counsel called only his mother and half-sister to humanize Lang and present mental-health/abuse themes; counsel declined to call a psychologist or offer voluminous corroborating records.
- Post-conviction records later produced additional, more detailed evidence of severe early childhood abuse, neglect, and psychiatric history that counsel did not present (some records arrived late or not used). Counsel also characterized Lang’s pre-age-ten childhood as “normal” in closing.
- Lang pursued direct appeal, state post-conviction relief, and federal habeas corpus under AEDPA; the Ohio courts and the district court denied relief; this appeal raised juror-bias and several ineffective-assistance claims related to mitigation strategy and voir dire of jurors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lang) | Defendant's Argument (State/Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror bias from seating of Juror 386 | Juror 386 should never have been empaneled; her presence (even briefly) and the court’s minimal inquiry tainted the jury | Trial court held a Remmer hearing, juror denied discussing case, panel indicated no contact; no evidence of actual prejudice | No constitutional violation under Remmer/Smith; state court reasonably applied federal law; habeas denied |
| Failure to individually question jurors about Juror 386 | Counsel should have requested individual voir dire of jurors to detect possible subtle taint | No prejudice shown; group inquiry and juror assurances suffice; counsel’s performance not shown to be deficient or prejudicial | No Strickland relief; related ineffective-assistance claim denied |
| Inadequate investigation/presentation of mitigation evidence | Counsel failed to uncover and present significant, non-cumulative mitigation (early severe abuse, corroborating records); investigation was cursory and some records arrived too late | Counsel hired mitigation investigator, psychologist, spent preparation hours; strategic choice to humanize via mother/sister and avoid opening doors to harmful evidence was reasonable | State court reasonably applied Strickland and AEDPA; no habeas relief for mitigation-investigation claim |
| Counsel’s characterization of childhood as “normal” in closing | Mischaracterizing horrific early abuse minimized mitigation and was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial | Statement fit counsel’s strategy to focus jury on abuse post-abduction and maintain credibility; not deficient or prejudicial | Majority: not ineffective under Strickland/AEDPA; dissent would find deficiency and prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (trial court must investigate alleged extraneous contacts and determine prejudicial impact in a hearing with interested parties)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (defendant bears burden to show actual juror bias; no automatic new trial for potentially compromising situations)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (to obtain new trial for a juror's false answers on voir dire, party must show dishonest answer to a material question that would have provided a basis for challenge for cause)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel has duty to investigate mitigation; strategic choices must be based on adequate investigation)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA limits federal habeas review to state-court record)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (state-court rulings on Strickland receive deference; courts may not indulge post hoc rationalizations)
- Phillips v. Bradshaw, 607 F.3d 199 (6th Cir. 2010) (vacillating Remmer/Smith application; juror assurances may suffice where court questioned jurors individually)
- United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2000) (post-contact inquiry insufficient where court asked only group questions; hearing was inadequate)