Marshall v. Moore, 1:24-cv-00012

Juanito Marshall, convicted in Ohio state court on multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and endangering children, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the state court’s admittance of prior "other acts" evidence under Rule 404(b).
The trial involved allegations that Marshall repeatedly sexually abused K.H., then a minor, when she was seven; her delayed disclosure led to a 2019 indictment on ten counts.
At trial, Marshall objected to certain testimony regarding his prior sexual conduct with another adult (T.T.), but the court admitted some of this evidence, finding it relevant to show motive or plan.
The jury found Marshall guilty on all but one count. His appeals, reconsideration, and attempts to reopen the appeal in state courts were unsuccessful.
In his federal habeas petition, Marshall argued that the admission of 404(b) evidence prejudiced his right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause, and that such error was not harmless.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the habeas petition on procedural default grounds—the claims were not fairly presented in state court as federal constitutional issues—and further found the third ground not cognizable in federal habeas because Supreme Court precedent does not clearly bar admission of propensity evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the admission of 404(b) evidence harmless?	Marshall: The error was not harmless; it prejudiced the trial and lacked overwhelming evidence of guilt.	State: Any error was harmless error due to strong proof.	Court: Claim procedurally defaulted, not properly raised as federal claim in state court
Was the trial court’s admission of 404(b) evidence a due process violation?	Marshall: Allowed improper propensity evidence, violating due process under the 14th Amendment.	State: Admission consistent with Ohio law and not federal constitutional error.	Court: Claim procedurally defaulted and not cognizable on habeas review
Did the state appellate court unreasonably apply Chapman v. California?	Marshall: Harmless error review was flawed; the court ignored crucial credibility and did not properly weigh prejudice.	State: Appellate court reasonably applied standard.	Court: Claim procedurally defaulted and not fairly presented as federal claim
Can procedural default be excused by cause or actual innocence?	Marshall: Did not present arguments excusing procedural default.	State: No cause or actual innocence shown.	Court: No cause or actual innocence; default not excused

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (standards for "contrary to" or "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas courts rarely overturn state evidentiary rulings unless there is a constitutional violation)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default in habeas corpus—must show cause and prejudice or actual innocence)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual innocence exception to procedural default)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (requirement to fairly present federal constitutional claims at each stage of state court review)