Jalowiec v. Bradshaw, 657 F.3d 293

Jalowiec was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Ohio; Lally’s body was found Jan 19, 1994 in Woodland Cemetery, with gunshot and blunt-force injuries.
The prosecution’s case centered on Michael Smith’s testimony; the defense offered no guilt-phase proofs.
Jalowiec pursued appellate and post-conviction relief unsuccessfully in Ohio; 47 habeas claims were filed in district court, five of which were certified for appeal.
The district court denied several claims on procedural default but addressed merits; five claims were appealed.
The five certified claims include Brady nondisclosure, defense counsel conflict of interest, penalty-phase hearsay, mitigation investigation, and appellate counsel effectiveness.
The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief on all five claims after de novo review where applicable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady nondisclosure materiality	Nondisclosure of witness statements and inducements violated Brady.	Any nondisclosures were not material or prejudicial; harmless error.	No reversible Brady error; not material.
Conflict of interest in trial counsel	Counsel Hopkins’s cooperation created an actual conflict affecting trial representation.	No adverse effect; Sullivan presumption not triggered; no prejudice.	No Sullivan prejudice; conflict did not affect outcome.
Penalty-phase hearsay evidence	Counsel failed to object to hearsay tapes; prejudice to sentencing.	Ohio Supreme Court found no Strickland prejudice.	Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland; no prejudice.
Mitigation investigation and presentation	Counsel failed to conduct/present thorough mitigation.	Evidence presented was reasonable and not substantially different; not prejudicial.	No reasonable probability of different outcome; claim denied.
Appellate counsel effectiveness	Appellate counsel failed to raise trial-counsel conflict and hearsay issues.	Counsel's choices were reasonable; not prejudicial.	No reasonable probability of different outcome; appellate claim denied.

Beuke v. Houk, 537 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2008) ( Brady material standard and materiality analysis)
Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769 (U.S. 2009) (AEDPA review deference; exhaustion concerns)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (limitations on de novo review of state-court decisions)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality and prejudice in Brady claims)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality and collective evaluation of suppressed evidence)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady obligation includes impeachment and exculpatory evidence)
Moss v. United States, 323 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2003) (conflict-of-interest standards in atypical representation cases)
Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 468 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2006) (Sullivan prejudice analysis in conflict cases)