Michael Scott v. Marc Houk, 760 F.3d 497

Background

Scott was convicted in Ohio state court of two murders, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, and sentenced to death.
On direct appeal in state court, he challenged the course-of-conduct aggravator, sufficiency of two aggravating factors, and ineffective assistance at sentencing; the Ohio Supreme Court rejected these claims.
Scott pursued post-conviction relief in state court, including claims of ineffective assistance and lethal-injection challenges; relief was denied.
He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief on multiple grounds, and the district court denied relief with a certificate on one penalty-phase ineffectiveness claim.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit addressed four habeas grounds: constitutionality of the course-of-conduct aggravator as applied, failure to merge two aggravating specifications, ineffective assistance in penalty phase, and the lethal-injection challenge.
The court concluded the course-of-conduct claim was procedurally defaulted, and found no reasonable basis to overturn state-court decisions on the ineffective-assistance claims; it also held that lethal-injection challenges belong in separate § 1983 proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Course-of-conduct aggravator validity as applied	Scott argued it narrows death-eligibility unconstitutionally under Maynard/Godfrey.	Ohio courts adequately applied the factor; it is not unconstitutionally broad or vague.	Claim procedurally defaulted; no merits reached.
Merge of two aggravating specifications	Two separate aggravators (robbery, kidnapping) improperly tilt toward death; should be merged.	No clearly established Supreme Court rule requires merger in this context; Ohio’s decision reasonable.	No relief; AEDPA deference applied; no error in state court.
Ineffective assistance—unsworn statement guidance	Counsel mis-advised, potentially affecting mitigation presentation and responsibility admission.	Prejudice not shown since guilt was conceded and substantial mitigation already presented; error not prejudicial.	No relief; Strickland prejudice not shown.
Ineffective assistance—mitigating evidence	Counsel failed to develop additional mitigation from Scott’s adoptive-family experiences.	Counsel conducted reasonable investigation and presented substantial mitigation; alleged affidavits not compelling.	No relief; state court reasonably denied; no prejudice shown.
Lethal injection challenge	Execution method unconstitutional; violates Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments; seeks remand for more development.	Lethal injection as a method is permissible; issue belongs in § 1983 protocol challenges, not habeas.	Remand denied; issue confined to separate § 1983 action; no habeas relief.

Key Cases Cited

Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1988) (narrowing requirement for capital aggravators)
Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1980) (capital-sentencing vagueness concerns)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for aggravating factors)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (framework for reviewing state-court decisions under AEDPA)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard and prejudice requirement)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence in capital cases)
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (execution protocol considerations under Eighth Amendment)
Cooey v. Strickland, 589 F.3d 210 (6th Cir. 2009) (context of capital punishment and standards for review)
Davie v. Mitchell, 547 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2008) (Murnahan filings and preservation of claims for habeas review)
Wogenstahl v. Mitchell, 668 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 2012) ( limits of Murnahan and procedural default guidance)
White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2005) (Murnahan procedure and preservation rules)