Stumpf v. Houk
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16509
6th Cir.2011Background
- Stumpf was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death after a plea to one capital specification, with the state arguing he was the principal offender.
- Wesley, the codefendant, was tried later; Eastman testified Wesley admitted firing the shots, while the state had previously argued Stumpf was the shooter.
- The prosecution in Stumpf’s sentencing relied on inconsistent theories about who was the triggerman, which the Supreme Court later questioned in Bradshaw v. Stumpf.
- On remand, the Sixth Circuit evaluated whether the state’s use of irreconcilable theories violated due process in Stumpf’s capital sentencing.
- The panel concluded that the prosecutorial conduct deprived Stumpf of due process and remanded for a conditional writ of habeas corpus pending a new sentencing hearing within 90 days.
- The district court and state proceeding history, including the post-Bradshaw rulings and subsequent Supreme Court remand, frame the timing and scope of the remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did inconsistent prosecutorial theories violate due process? | Stumpf contends the state’s irreconcilable theories compromised sentencing. | Houk argues no due process violation since convictions remained valid and Ohio law supports the verdicts. | Yes; due process violated, requiring remand for new sentencing. |
| Does Teague bar retroactive application of a new rule? | Stumpf claims Teague bars retroactive consideration of a new rule. | Ohio argues Teague applies or could bar merits consideration. | Teague defense waived; court proceeds to merits; however, the majority declines Teague retroactivity as a barrier. |
| Should the case be remanded for a new sentencing hearing? | Stumpf seeks relief consistent with due process and fairness. | State argues resentencing would be improper or unnecessary if convictions stand. | Yes; remand for a new sentencing hearing within 90 days unless Ohio grants new sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court 2005) (remanded to consider sentencing impact of Eastman testimony and prosecutorial conduct)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court 1935) (prosecutor not to pursue foul means; duty to fairness)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (Supreme Court 1985) (heightened reliability in capital sentencing)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court 1989) (nonretroactivity of new constitutional rules)
- Stumpf v. Mitchell, 367 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (inconsistent theories in dual trials violated due process)
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 2004) (exhaustion and default defenses in pre-AEDPA context)
- Williams v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2001) (mixed questions of fact and law in habeas review)