Tibbetts v. Bradshaw, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2912

Tibbetts, an Ohio death-row inmate, was convicted in 1998 of three counts of aggravated murder, one count of murder, and aggravated robbery for the Hicks/Crawford killings, with three aggravating murder specifications noted.
At penalty, Tibbetts' defense hired mitigation specialist Crates and psychiatrist Dr. Weaver; Weaver testified about Tibbetts' abusive upbringing and substance abuse, while Tibbetts made an unsworn personal statement.
The jury sentenced Tibbetts to death for the aggravated-murder counts and life without parole for Crawford’s murder; the trial court adopted the jury’s recommendations and imposed multiple sentences.
The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately denied Tibbetts’ direct-appeal claims after re-weighing aggravating and mitigating factors; post-conviction relief was denied and direct-review re-openings were denied as well.
Tibbetts filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied the petition but issued a COA on three claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel at the penalty phase.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that trial counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient and that any error in the trial court’s consideration of mitigating evidence was cured by the Ohio Supreme Court’s independent reweighing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Penalty-phase counsel inadequate for mental-state evidence	Tibbetts contends trial counsel failed to present pharmacology evidence.	Bradshaw argues the trial strategy was reasonable and Weaver’s testimony covered the issue.	No AEDPA/prejudice, no deficiency established.
Failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence	Counsel inadequately investigated Tibbetts’ childhood and failed to corroborate Weaver with other witnesses.	Counsel reasonably limited and strategic with available resources; present mitigation was adequate.	No prejudice; post-conviction evidence was cumulative and insufficient to change outcome.
Appellate counsel failure to raise trial-court mitigation weighing error	Ohio trial court allegedly failed to consider all mitigating evidence; appellate counsel should have raised it.	Ohio Supreme Court cured any error by independent reweighing; no prejudice to Tibbetts.	No prejudice; claim rejected.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application vs. reasonable interpretation under AEDPA)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (mitigation investigation standards; prejudice assessment)
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (2010) (prejudice from failure to present alternate mitigation theory)
Beuke v. Houk, 537 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2008) (non-cumulative but potentially mitigating evidence must affect outcome)
Phillips v. Bradshaw, 607 F.3d 199 (6th Cir. 2010) (mitigation evidence strength and strategy interplay)
White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2005) (pharmacology testimony; prejudice showing in penalty phase)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (juror must consider relevant mitigating factors)
Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (Ohio Supreme Court reweighing can cure sentencing-error)
Sears v. Upton, U.S. (2010) (Supreme Court on prejudice despite substantial mitigation)