Lee Moore v. Betty Mitchell
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3915
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lee Moore was convicted in Ohio state court of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, and sentenced to death.
- The district court granted habeas relief on Moore’s claims: (i) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and (ii) improper penalty-phase jury instructions; other claims were denied.
- Moore’s mitigation expert had a potential conflict of interest with Moore’s co-defendant Holmes, but the state court found no merit and the federal court upheld that ruling.
- On appeal, Moore argued additional ineffective-assistance claims (trial counsel’s handling of mitigation, opening/closing at penalty, and admission/handling of evidence), plus prosecutorial misconduct and Miranda-related issues.
- The panel reversed the district court on the two sentencing/instruction claims but affirmed denial of relief on all other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict-of-interest mitigation claim default | Moore contends conflict of interest by mitigation specialist Stidham harmed defense | State courts adequately resolved the conflict issue; no prejudice shown | Claim defaulted; no AEDPA error in denial |
| Ineffective assistance for mitigation preparation (trial counsel) | Counsel failed to prepare mitigation due to Stidham's involvement | No evidence of deficient performance or prejudice; residual doubt not central | No deficient performance or prejudice; no relief |
| Ineffective assistance for mitigation prep of Chiappone testimony | Counsel should have anticipated Chiappone’s testimony and avoided calling him | Record insufficient to show counsel’s preparation deficient; testimony not outcome-determinative | State court reasonably concluded no prejudice; no relief |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising acquittal-first instruction | Appellate counsel erred by not raising acquittal-first instruction as federal issue | Acquittal-first doctrine not clearly established federal law at the time | No deficient performance or prejudice; no relief |
| Prosecutor misconduct during sentencing | Prosecutor urged jurors to identify with victim; improper comments | Reweighing by state courts cured any error; not prejudicial | No reversible error; reweighing cured potential prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Beuke v. Houk, 537 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2008) (victim-impact evidence in guilt phase permissible; not prejudicial)
- Baston v. Bagley, 420 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2005) (reweighing mitigators cures sentencing errors in capital cases)
- Davis v. Mitchell, 558 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2009) (acquittal-first instruction analysis context-dependent)
- Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1988) (unanimity on mitigation evidence; each juror must consider all mitigating evidence)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (race-neutral explanations must be plausible; ultimate burden on Batson movant)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice required for ineffective assistance)
- North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1979) (signed waiver as strong but not conclusive proof of validity)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA review applies to summary state-court decisions)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA §2254(d)(1) limits review to record before state court)
- Spisak v. Mitchell, 130 S. Ct. 684 (U.S. 2010) (acquittal-first doctrine not clearly established; caution in habeas review)