State v. Mammone (Slip Opinion), 139 Ohio St. 3d 467

Background

Defendant James Mammone III was indicted on three counts of aggravated murder with multiple death specifications and related offenses following the June 7–8, 2009 murders of Margaret Eakin and Mammone’s two young children.
Mammone allegedly killed Macy (5) and James (3) by stabbing in a car seat, then shot Margaret Eakin during an aggravated burglary, with a protection order and other firearm-related counts included.
Pretrial motions included a venue-change request based on excessive pretrial publicity and a motion in limine to exclude victim photographs; both were denied as premature but left open for renewal.
The state presented testimony from Marcia Eakin and others; Mammone confessed to the crimes in a recorded interview after arrest, and a jury heard evidence including gruesome photos and autopsy results.
Mammone was convicted on all counts on January 14, 2010 and sentenced to three death sentences on January 22, 2010; noncapital offenses were separately sentenced.
On appeal, Mammone challenged venue, juror bias, admission of gruesome photos, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the proportionality of his death sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there prejudicial pretrial publicity requiring venue change?	Mammone claims publicity prejudiced jurors; presumption of prejudice warranted.	Court should presume prejudice due to pervasive publicity or at least require transfer after voir dire.	No presumption of prejudice; voir dire and safeguards upheld impartiality.
Were jurors biased in favor of death penalty during sentencing?	Jurors 418 and 448 showed automatic death-penalty bias affecting sentencing.	Trial court properly evaluated juror assurances and could seat them as impartial.	No reversible error; trial court properly weighed juror assurances and instructions.
Were gruesome photographs properly admitted during trial and sentencing?	Photos were prejudicial and cumulative; violated due process and fair trial protections.	Photos had probative value and were non-redundant under capital-case standards.	Admissibility proper; no abuse of discretion; not prejudicial to outcome.
Did prosecutorial misconduct occur and affect the trial or mitigation phase?	Inflammatory evidence and comments improperly influenced jurors.	Evidence and remarks were proper and within trial court’s discretion.	No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; cumulative harmless in light of overwhelming evidence.
Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance?	Voir dire and mitigation preparation were deficient; cross-examination and strategy faulty.	Strategic decisions and cross-examination choices were reasonable; no prejudice shown.	No ineffective-assistance; no reasonable probability of different outcome.

Key Cases Cited

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (presumed prejudice factors for pretrial publicity analyzed)
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1963) (pretrial publicity alone can yield presumed prejudice)
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966) (courtroom atmosphere and publicity affect fairness)
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (continues to guide pretrial publicity analysis)
State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 (2009) (standard for evaluating change-of-venue and prejudice in Ohio)
State v. Morgan, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (capital-sentencing safeguards and impartial jurors)
State v. Jenkins, Abbrev not provided; official reporter guidance (1984) (weight and vagueness of Ohio capital scheme)
State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (2012) (proportionality and appellate review of death sentences)