Otte v. Houk
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16609
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Otte is an Ohio prisoner on death row convicted in 1992 of two murders by a three-judge panel; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the death sentence.
- Otte waived his right to a jury trial and was sentenced after a penalty-phase proceeding with mitigating testimony.
- A suppression hearing denied Otte’s motion to suppress his confession from Miranda-related issues.
- The federal district court denied the habeas petition; a certificate of appealability was granted for three claims.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo under AEDPA standards because the petition was filed after the AEDPA’s effective date.
- Judge Cole dissented tentang Miranda claim, signaling a split in perceived proper analysis and outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Otte validly waived jury trial | Otte argues Mellaril withdrawal impaired capacity to waive | State court found waiver voluntary, knowing, intelligent | Waiver upheld; state court credible deference applied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at penalty phase | Counsel failed to retain a substance abuse expert and to present upbringing mitigation | Testimony was cumulative; strategic choice not unreasonable | No ineffective-assistance violation; no prejudice established |
| Miranda waiver validity | Withdrawal and low IQ rendered waiver involuntary/knowingly intelligent de jure | State courts properly applied Moran and Connelly; waiver valid | Waiver valid; not unreasonable under AEDPA; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (contrary/unreasonable application standard under AEDPA)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (two-part test for knowing and intelligent waiver)
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) (totality of circumstances in waiver analysis)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (interrogation initiation and abandonment rules)
- Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (coercive police activity and voluntariness limitations)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 145 (1968) (right to jury trial; fundamental due process right)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence; prejudice standard)
- Clark v. Mitchell, 425 F.3d 270 (2005) (mitigation evidence adequacy and prejudice)
- White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517 (2005) (cumulative mitigation evidence; expert testimony)