620 F.3d 650
6th Cir.2010Background
- Petition for rehearing en banc denied after circulation to all active judges; judge recusal noted.
- Center issue concerns validity of an Ohio penalty-phase jury instruction in a capital case.
- Instruction required weighing aggravating vs mitigating factors and guiding death sentence recommendation.
- AEDPA applies; Petitioner argues Beck v. Alabama should apply to penalty-phase instruction.
- Supreme Court's Spisak decision deemed similar instructions permissible under AEDPA; panel’s merits ruling stands.
- Author agrees with denying rehearing en banc and emphasizes merits-based review should be rare in en banc context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ohio penalty-phase instruction violated due process under Beck | Mitts contends Beck applies to penalty phase | Arguments rely on distinguishing Beck as inapplicable to penalty phase | No clearly established violation; Beck inapplicable to penalty phase per Spisak |
| Whether AEDPA standard forecloses relief for Mitts | AEDPA requires deference; Beck not clearly established | AEDPA review governs; Beck does not control | relief denied under AEDPA; no clearly established federal law violated |
| Whether en banc review was warranted | Panel decision merits en banc reconsideration | En banc review not compelled; no circuit split or exceptional circumstance | En banc review denied; merits-based disagreement alone not sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (penalty-phase issues; no due-process violation identified for penalty phase)
- Spisak v. Smith, 130 S. Ct. 676 (2010) (instruction not contrary to clearly established federal law; AEDPA applied)
- Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2008) (jury balancing in capital sentencing; states' freedom to structure sentencing)
- Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (mitigating-factor unanimity concerns; relevance to proportionality review)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (capital sentencing framework; separate guilt and penalty phases)
- Maples v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408 (1999) (discussed in Spisak regarding review grounds)