956 F.3d 358
6th Cir.2020Background:
- July 9, 2006 drive-by shooting at an occupied mobile-home trailer in Ypsilanti, Michigan; two teenagers were killed.
- Joshua Tackett was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two felony-firearm counts; sentenced to life without parole for murder.
- Codefendants Sykes and Tard pleaded guilty to open murder; after degree hearings the trial judge found them guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced them to life with parole eligibility.
- Tackett pursued state postconviction relief (including an argument about disparate verdicts) and then filed a federal habeas petition raising sufficiency of the evidence, unanimity instruction, inconsistent verdicts, and ineffective-assistance claims; district court denied relief but granted COA on several issues.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed the habeas petition under AEDPA deference and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tackett) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree murder (aiding/abetting) | Evidence insufficient because Tackett held a handgun while fatal wounds were from assault rifles; handgun shot predated incident | Rational juror could find Tackett aided/encouraged killers: provided gloves, attempted to fire, hid rifles; shooters acted with intent and premeditation | Affirmed: under Jackson/AEDPA, evidence supports intent, premeditation, and aiding/abetting liability |
| Jury unanimity instruction (must agree on principal vs aider/abettor theory) | Court should have given a special unanimity instruction requiring jurors to agree on a single theory | Tackett waived objection by approving instructions; no federal rule required special unanimity here | Affirmed: claim waived and meritless; general unanimity instruction sufficient |
| Disparate/inconsistent verdicts vis-à-vis codefendants | Convicting Tackett of first-degree while codefendants got second-degree violated due process/equal protection | Inconsistent jury outcomes are constitutionally permissible; aiding/abetting can be punished regardless of codefendant outcomes | Affirmed: inconsistent verdicts do not violate Constitution (cites Supreme Court precedent) |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple omissions) | Counsel failed to recall/impeach key witness, object to instructions, move to adjourn for ballistics testing, or impeach eyewitnesses | Decisions were reasonable trial strategy or nonprejudicial; state courts reasonably rejected Strickland-based claims | Affirmed: under Strickland and AEDPA, Tackett failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Appellate counsel failed to raise trial counsel errors and failed to obtain codefendant degree-hearing transcripts timely | Underlying trial-counsel issues lacked merit; disparity argument would not have succeeded; appellate counsel not ineffective for omitting nonmeritorious claims | Affirmed: no ineffectiveness because omitted issues lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (Due Process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650 (habeas relief for sufficiency claims requires objective unreasonableness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA’s highly deferential standard for Strickland rulings)
- Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (aider/abettor may be convicted even if principal is acquitted)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (alternative theories may support conviction without jury agreement on theory)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (doubly deferential review of Strickland on habeas)
- Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 (inconsistent verdicts are not a sufficient reason to set verdict aside)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (retroactivity principle cited by Tackett but distinguishable)