Stumpf v. Robinson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13584
6th Cir.2013Background
- Stumpf sought federal habeas relief after Ohio death sentence for a murder committed with Wesley.
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf (2005) reversed this court and remanded to address sentencing due-process claim.
- State presented new Eastman testimony during Wesley’s trial; post-sentencing motions allowed reconsideration.
- Ohio courts (trial, appeals, and supreme) independently weighed all evidence and affirmed death.
- Wesley received a life sentence; Stumpf challenged the propriety of Eastman’s testimony and the two-/three-judge panel procedures.
- The panel’s handling on remand and the related prosecutorial arguments are the central due-process dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-sentencing proceedings violated due process | Stumpf: Eastman evidence and prosecutorial conduct undermined fairness | State: complete evidentiary record was considered; no fundamental unfairness | No due-process violation under Brecht harmless-error standard |
| Whether prosecutorial arguments altered the outcome of sentencing | Stumpf: inconsistent theories used to condemn him and later exonerate him | State: arguing different inferences from the same record is permissible | Arguments did not render sentencing fundamentally unfair |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel occurred at sentencing | Counsel failed to present additional mitigating evidence | Counsel reasonably presented substantial mitigating evidence | No ineffective-assistance; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether Ohio’s death-penalty scheme required three judges for resentencing | Two-judge panel proceedings violated unanimity requirements | Panel could decide law questions; later independent review remained adequate | Proceeding insufficiently protective; need full three-judge unanimity for complete record |
| Whether state-law issues foreclose federal relief | Ohio law governed sentencing-process adequacy | Federal review limited to federal due-process standards | AEDPA abstention or deference; state-law issues do not entitle relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1967) (prosecutorial false evidence; due process violation)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court 1935) (perjury and deception; due process)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (Supreme Court 1959) (prosecutor’s failure to correct false testimony)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court 1935) (prosecutorial misconduct; foul play prohibited)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (Supreme Court 1986) (prosecutor’s conduct; due-process fairness)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (Supreme Court 1993) (harmless-error standard in habeas review)
- Rosencrantz v. Lafler, 568 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2009) (harmless-error analysis in sentencing)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court 1991) (federal review of state-law errors; not remedy for state-law issues)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (Supreme Court 1982) (capital-punishment limits for non-killer participants)