549 F. App'x 444
6th Cir.2013Background
- Ross, convicted in Ohio state court of four counts of gross sexual imposition, one count of rape of a child under ten, and possession of cocaine, and the district court denied his §2254 petition; AEDPA applies to the merits.
- The victims, two minor cousins (B.B. and D.D.), testified to alleged abuse by Ross during overnight visits; Ross was referred to as ‘Pappaw.’
- Ross challenged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, including appeals to emotion, accusations of coaching, a ‘golden rule’ argument, and witness credibility comments.
- Ross also challenged the trial court’s failure to disclose exculpatory grand jury testimony, arguing it could impeach the victims whose trial testimony did not include anal-penetration allegations.
- State appellate courts rejected the claims, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied discretionary review; Ross then sought habeas relief in federal court, which denied two non-defaulted claims after addressing others as defaulted.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews de novo legal conclusions and applies AEDPA’s ‘unreasonable application’ standard to state-court adjudications on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct and due process | Ross argues closing remarks violated Darden and denied fair trial. | State-court authorities found no due-process violation; isolated statements not prejudicial. | No due-process violation; no unreasonable application of Darden. |
| Brady and non-disclosure of grand jury transcripts | Non-disclosure violated Brady by omitting impeachment material that could show inconsistencies. | Grand jury transcripts were not shown to contain impeachment material; there was no materiality. | No Brady violation; transcripts not material; no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct must render trial unfair)
- Parker v. Matthews, 132 S. Ct. 2148 (2012) (rejects reliance on circuit-era tests; requires reasonable application of Supreme Court standard)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (AEDPA deference; unreasonable application standard for state-court decisions)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA review framework and clearly established federal law)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence and materiality under Brady)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (due process requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence upon request)
- Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966) (grand jury secrecy and when transcripts may be disclosed)
- Dye v. Hofbauer, 546 U.S. 1 (2005) (exhaustion and fair presentation in federal habeas)