State v. Herring (Slip Opinion)
28 N.E.3d 1217
Ohio2014Background
- Herring, a death-row inmate, participated in a 1996 bar robbery that left three dead and two wounded; he was the ringleader and used a mask during the crime.
- At trial, Herring was convicted on multiple counts including three death-penalty murder specifications; mitigation focused on positive, not negative, background evidence.
- During mitigation, defense presented family testimony and argued youth; prosecutors argued disparity with accomplices who did not receive death.
- Herring filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance for failing to conduct a thorough mitigation investigation; affidavits and records supported deficiencies by the mitigation specialist.
- The trial court denied relief; appellate court ordered an evidentiary hearing and remanded for a new sentencing hearing; on remand, evidentiary hearings occurred with testimony from counsel and the mitigation specialist.
- The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately upheld the appellate court’s decision, vacated the death penalty, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing with a new jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial counsel’s mitigation investigation breach Strickland? | Herring | State | Yes; deficient investigation prejudiced Herring. |
| Can a mitigation specialist’s deficiencies be imputed to trial counsel? | Herring | State | No constitutional right to mitigation specialist absolves counsel responsibility; deficiencies imputable. |
| Was the deficiency prejudicial requiring a new sentencing proceeding? | Herring | State | Yes; undiscovered mitigating evidence could have changed the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court (1984)) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standards in ineffective-assistance claims)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. Supreme Court (2000)) (requires thorough investigation to support mitigation strategy)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court (2003)) (limits on mitigation strategy without full investigation; ABA guidelines cited)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. Supreme Court (2005)) (prejudice can be shown by undiscovered mitigating evidence)
- Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (U.S. Supreme Court (1987)) (defense strategy to present limited mitigation may be reasonable in some trials)