Sheppard v. Bagley
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18883
6th Cir.2011Background
- In 1994, Sheppard, then 18, and a 14-year-old accomplice robbed a Cincinnati liquor store; Sheppard shot the owner, and the crime was captured on video.
- Sheppard was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to death after a penalty-phase trial.
- During the penalty phase, a juror (Fox) disclosed consulting an outside source (Dr. Helen Jones); the trial court conducted an in-camera hearing and found no prejudice.
- Sheppard pursued state appeals and collateral attacks; both the Ohio Supreme Court and state courts denied relief.
- Sheppard filed a federal habeas petition under AEDPA; the district court denied relief and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
- The central federal issues concern juror misconduct, admissibility of mitigating evidence, prosecutorial conduct, jury impartiality, and Beck/ cumulative-error challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of AEDPA and new-evidence | Sheppard argues new evidence should be considered. | Ohio contends §2254(d) and §2254(e)(2) foreclose based on state-court record and diligence rules. | AEDPA §2254(d) governs; new-evidence hearing not allowed; no relief. |
| Juror misconduct standard and prejudice | Ohio court misapplied Gall and defense shows actual prejudice. | Ohio court properly applied Sixth Circuit principles; no prejudice established. | No contrary/unreasonable application; no relief. |
| Admissibility of family-mental-illness mitigation | Exclusion of records violated due process to present mitigating evidence. | Records were cumulative/irrelevant to mitigation; no due-process violation. | No due-process violation; exclusion was permissible. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during penalty phase | Prosecutor improperly attacked defense strategy and expert; tainted the trial. | Reweighing by the Ohio Supreme Court cured any misconduct. | Reweighing cured misconduct; no federal relief. |
| Juror Wells's exclusion and impartiality | Court erred by not allowing Wells to serve; violated Sixth Amendment. | Trial court acted within discretion; Wells’s views would impair duties. | Trial court properly excluded; no due-process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265 (6th Cir.2000) (four-part framework for juror-misconduct adjudications)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (limits on jury instructions in capital sentencing)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (actual prejudice governs juror-exposure challenges post-Remmer)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (ex parte juror contact presumed prejudicial; government bears burden)
- Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966) (principles against extrinsic influence on jurors)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (AEDPA §2254(d)(1) requires record-before-state-court-review)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (AEDPA deferential review standards for federal habeas)