State v. Herring
2011 Ohio 662
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Herring, one of the Newport Inn shooters, was convicted of three counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death.
- The convictions and sentences were upheld on direct appeal by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2002.
- Herring filed a postconviction petition in 1999, seeking relief and discovery/evidentiary hearing under R.C. 2953.21.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing, prompting appellate review.
- On remand, a hearing showed mitigation investigator Hrdy performed substandard work and trial counsel did not independently verify or pursue broader mitigation evidence.
- The Seventh District granted postconviction relief, reversed the death sentences, and ordered a new sentencing hearing with a jury option for life or death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel's mitigation investigation met professional standards | Herring argues counsel failed to investigate negative mitigation and relied on an incomplete mitigation report | Herring contends counsel’s investigation was deficient and failed to uncover material mitigating evidence | Yes; the postconviction court abused its discretion by finding reasonable investigation |
| Whether the failure to pursue full mitigation evidence violated Strickland | State argues strategic decision to present only positive mitigation was reasonable | Herring asserts lack of full investigation undermined informed mitigation strategy | Yes; lack of complete investigation rendered strategy unreasonable |
| Whether the postconviction relief petition should be granted given ineffective assistance evidence | Herring seeks voiding of death sentences and resentencing | State argues no reversible error under current record | Petition granted; death sentences reversed; remanded for new sentencing hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (tasked with inadequate mitigation investigation; guidelines for reasonable investigation)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (holds duty to obtain and review material aggravating evidence and mitigating leads)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (importance of investigating mitigating evidence to inform strategic choices)
- State v. Johnson, 24 Ohio St.3d 87 (Ohio 1986) (two-prong Strickland test; duty to investigate mitigating evidence)
- Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376 (6th Cir. 2003) (reemphasizes completeness of investigation and access to mitigating sources)