Ross v. Petro

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge.

Fоllowing four weeks of trial murder, kidnaping, rape and other charges, and during the day second delibera- tions, the Ohio trial court declared a mis- trial after receiving a note from the fore- person indicating jury’s deliberations had been tainted extraneous informa- tion. Prior to commencement of the sec- trial, however, ond court, the trial in the person replacement of a visiting judge, granted defendant Denny Ross’s motion to bar reprosecution on double jeopardy grounds, concluding there was no “mani- necessity” fest for mistrial. This ruling reversed the Ohio Court Appeals and the Ohio Court denied leave to appeal. Defendant thereupon sought pretrial habeas relief in court, which granted. The district court held that the Ohio Court of Appeals’ ruling represents an unreasonable clearly established federal law. appeal, On the Summit County Court of Common ARGUED: Meyer, Matthew E. Office of Pleas contends the district court failed to the Prosecuting Cleveland, Attorney, Ohio, abide the deferential standard of review for Appellant. Cairns, Jacob A. Law Of- applicable made by the Anti-Terrorism fice, Columbus, Ohio, Appellee. for ON and Effеctive Death Penalty Act. For the BRIEF: Matthew E. Meyer, Jon W. follow, reasons that we agree. The district Oebker, Office of the Prosecuting Attor- judgment granting the writ of ha- ney, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jacob corpus beas will therefore be reversed. A. Cairns, Office, Law Columbus, Ohio, Kravitz, Max Kravitz, Dortch, Brown & I.

Columbus, Ohio, BACKGROUND Chesnoff, David Z. Ches- noff & Schonfeld, Vegas, Las Nevada, The material facts are not disputed. Sr., Lawrence J. Whitney, Burdon & Mer- In connection with the murder litti, Akron, Ohio, for Appellee. year-old Hill, Hannah Denny defendant Ross was charged in Summit County GUY,

Before: ROGERS, and Court of Common murder, Pleas with ag- McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. gravated murder, rape, kidnaping, tam- McKEAGUE, J., delivered the pering evidence, and abuse of a court, ROGERS, J., which joined. corpse. Trial commenced September on GUY, (pp. 671-73), J. a separate delivered 2000. At the prosecu- close dissenting opinion. case, tion’s court, Judge Jane today because leaving after be as he will motion defendant’s Bond, granted did not but he at home problem he has kidnaping on acquittal judgment position. in that us put proofs no want to presented The defense charge. deliberating Octo- began the com- juror he made “To another afternoon in the Early 27, 2000. ber Brad O’Born knows he ment that re- jury having 28, the Saturday, October poly- passed he because was innocent its lunch after its deliberations sumed to be Denny Ross had so test graph from a note received break, Judge guilty. advising counsel After foreperson. juror can if this asked “I have an sides both giving parties for the to his may attend he so that released ramifi- the note’s consider opportunity we can at home affairs hearing Bond convened cations, Judge jury.” fair impartial the contents read p.m. and at 8:50 the record: note into 4.”No. “Juror signed, It’s pur- For right. All THE COURT: 43^4.1 JA pp. tr. Trial pres- is not record, poses Rev. to Ohio then, reference with Bond the bailiff from the received ent. prosecutor 2945.36, the gave § Code as follows: jury the from following note comment opportunity to counsel defense I juror. about concern “There discharge to either consented on whether for spokesperson approached was prose- to the prejudice without jury of the comments From jurors. other four cution.2 jurors feel these four juror by this made consented, defendant group prosecutor the The with agreeing hе is that extraneous Observing that told I was did not. process. this expedite light following had come they [sic] information jurors these re- defense, defendant ver- that’s And favorable made.” were comments in- jury be essentially that quested batim. deliberating to continue to- done structed this get need “No. we op- declared, defendant’s be mistrial day. (evidencing verdict tion, if only an adverse discussing are we even why “No. extraneous of the influence possible he along that all stated He has this. information) Alternative- returned. were quickly too has all thing but one believes with a mistrial for moved ly, defendant with along go his vote changed re- both denied trial court The prejudice. juror this stated morning This group. quests. today to finish that we need to me ju- corruption of a (A) or the sickness For boyfriend apparently was O’Born

1. Brad calamity; or other accident ror suspect in the investi- awas victim such probability (B) intro- there no evidence Because No death. gation of her ever been agreeing; had jurors that O'Born at trial duced However, has been jury polygraph (C) examination. after appears subject to If it had this information a witness jurors is Bond recalled Judge that one sworn in the publicity subject pretrial case; p. Hrg. tr. newspaper. attorney Beacon Journal Akron prosecuting (D) By consent 160-61, JA 266-67. defendant. en- discharge shall such reason The provides: § 2945.36 Rev.Code 2. Ohio journal. on the tered jury with- discharge a may trial court prosecution: out The court went on to repeatedly invite a any invited who had concerns speak request from either side to conduct a voir with her privately in her chambers. Hrg. dire any jurors. examination p. tr. JA 210. jurors Five spoke prosecution Neither the nor the defense individually with Judge Bond. During one to interfere with wished the pending delib- of conversations, these she learned for the fact, Judge erations. Bond later char- first time jury ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍that the had completed and acterized objection defendant’s counsel’s to signed verdict forms unanimously finding voir dire as “vociferous” and “adamant.” defendant guilty of the charged of- Hrg. pp. tr. JA 249-50. murder, fenses of aggravated murder and proceeded to explain her belief that rape (though jury had yet reached note “extremely damaging to a decision on the remaining two charges, you prospect could [defendant] tampering with evidence and abuse of a a fair receive trial” inasmuch as it indicat- corpse). Judge Bond instructed her bailiff ed juror “that at least one believes you’re to retrieve the verdict forms from guilty based no upon evidence that was room. She then released the with- presented during this trial.” p. Trial tr. out making further inquiry about JA 50.3 Bond believed that misconduct and without the problem juror giving counsel a engaged had in miscon- duct, chance to speak and that his Only misconduct them. “imped- had after the ed full and fair deliberation of left evi- the building did jurors. dence” other Id. at JA 51. Bond advise counsel of signed Judge Bond was “absolutely convinced” forms. way there was no to “unring” the that bell A new trial was set to commence on had rung. been Id. She considered 8, January 2001. Defendant moved the rejected the notion of seating an alternate court to bar retrial on double jeopardy place in problem of the juror. Judge grounds. He also moved to disqualify Bond therefore found to there be “corrup- Judge Bond from juror” tion hearing motion, of a pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 2945.36(A), she would likely be determined called as a jury witness. could not render a fair The motion to impartial ver- disqualify granted dict in accordance with the law. Visiting On the Judge Joseph Cirigliano was as- record, she declared a mistrial without signed to the case. He conducted an evi- prejudice to prosecution and dis- dentiary hearing on the motion to bar re- charged the jury. 22, on May 2001. Judge Cirigliano

Then, granted Bond, alone, Judge motion to bar met with the retrial in an jury in the jury room. explained 15, She issued February to 2002. He jurors done, what she had summarized learned the rationale for his decision some of the were “extremely upset,” as follows: Judge 3. Bond’s construction of the note as alone, end of the day. Standing supposed signaling development a adverse to defen- polygraph not, course, results test did work dant’s incomplete. interests is The note can in defendant's favor. But the context in also be read implying at majori- least a which the that, information suggested arose ty of the were to inclined find defen- to extent the information had been guilty dant not and that a juror,” shared, “hold-out it and, swayed had not jurors; other contrary whose view was impermissibly fact, based in the disseminator of the information part least in information, on extraneous had even decided to abandon his rеliance on had "give decided to in” in order to facilitate casting in sum, then, it his own vote. the reaching of a by unanimous verdict appeared note good to be news to defendant. fied in her conclusion there existed no present

In the case in a by juror way a mistri- tainted misconduct declaring manifest to Id The court purged. alternatives a mistrial that could not be al. Reasonable in fan- Cirigliano give interest held to public and the failed existed just judgments in designed proper weight public’s to end to “the interest in trials declara- by just met the trial court’s fair designed judg- was not trials to end trial court abused tion of a mistrial. The Id ments.” JA 356-57. a declaring mistrial be- its discretion Bond was held not to have abused her investigate the informa- it failed to by failing cause to alterna- discretion consider note, in the it failed to forth by parties by set proposed tives not a declaring mis- explore alternatives voir dire examination of failing conduct trial, into consideration it failed to take any jurors parties’ objection. over by been reached the verdicts that had After the Court declined Ohio it whether jury, failed ascertain appeal from the hear defendant Ross’s of the any existed as result appeals’ ruling, court of he filed his habeas foreperson’s related in the information District of Ohio petition the Northern any note, attempt it cure failed 6,May petition was first existed, may it acted taint which Magistrate evaluated Kenneth S. of a mis- precipitately in declaration 74-page report McHargh, who issued trial, duly consider the failed to 3, 2005, May and recommendation on rec- to have his trial com- right defendant’s ommending petition granted. that the tribunal, especial- pleted particular August F.Supp.2d On capital this ly light fact that is a Dowd, Jr., Judge David D. issued District case. opinion and 36-page his order over- own 15-16, JA 341-42. Opinion pp. recom- objections report ruling ruling. appealed of Ohio The State granting relief. mendation and habeas In a 2-1 filed on December decision pre- of review Applying the standard 31890088, the Ninth Judi- 2002 WL Anti-Terrorism and Effec- scribed reversed. Appeals cial District Court (“AEDPA”), Penalty tive Death Act that appeals The determined court holding that a district court concluded Judge Cirigliano by failing erred to confine necessity” deter- “manifest Judge Bond’s scrutiny to the facts his of the record on a exer- “scrupulous was based mination at the time she known to only pro- judicial cise discretion” could by applying an declared mistrial and application ceed from an unreasonable standard, legal which constitut- erroneous law. Memoran- clearly established federal court of ed an abuse of discretion. The 982, JA 469-70. Opinion dum at explained that “manifest necessi- appeals County Court of appeal, On Summit necessity.” ty” does mean “absolute insists the Ohio Court Common Pleas The court pp. Decision JA 353-54. passes under Appeals’ decision muster exercised Bond had concluded district and contends the AEDPA review in that she “allowed the “sound discretion” should order habeas relief granting positions, considered parties to state their be reversed. therefore interests, made a competing their into alterna- thorough inquiry reasonable II. ANALYSIS in a mistrial this prior declaring tives of Review A. Standard 13, The held Id at JA 355. court case.” deci the district court’s We review to take the Bond was entitled corpus de writ habeas justi- grant sion to note at face value was therefore 660 Rose, 587, Moreover, “clearly v. 436 F.3d 590

novo. Linscott establishеd federal (6th Cir.2006). by law” is determined holdings, “the relevant As the manifest reaches us reviewed ple gress in these lenses is that not issue unless the state court ions, among yielded tion lenses presented question AEDPA. Pursuant part, several The “manifest by on appeal which there deference. a writ of habeas numerous are viewed necessity question finally carefully this prescribed by case habeas, Foremost judges necessity” is no reasoned through has now been corpus AEDPA, consensus. the merits adjudica and has among multi ques opin shall Con dant’s PA state court Walls, courts to The S.Ct. (quoting S.Ct. Carey Supreme opposed to the standard of review rights 490 F.3d substantive law 1495). 649, state court decision under review. v. give decisions. Williams, Musladin, Court 653, under considerable deference to dicta,” 166 L.Ed.2d 482 decisions, the Double 529 Id. requires ^[549] defining Hence, of United States at 435-36. U.S. U.S. at the the AED- Jeopardy a defen- [70], the time (2006) 127 120 relevantly Clause is set forth most in Ari- in a “resulted decision was con v. zona 434 Washington, U.S. 98 S.Ct. to, of, trary application anor unreasonable (1978), 54 717 L.Ed.2d where the law, clearly established Federal as deter Court addressed the explicitly matter by mined Court of United thoroughly. In Washington, the Court re- 2254(d)(1). § States.” 28 U.S.C. In Walls a ruling versed the Ninth Circuit which (6th Konteh, Cir.2007), v. 490 F.3d 432 grant had affirmed a relief habeas based recently explained Court and underscored on double jeopardy. The held meaning of this standard in the context Circuit, Ninth requiring explicit an analogous jeopardy double claim: finding of manifest necessity explicit A decision is state-court considered consideration of alternatives “contrary clearly to ... Fed- established court, had significance “attached undue different, “diametrically eral if it is law” the form of ruling.” Id. 98 nature, opposite character or mutu- S.Ct. 824. ally Taylor, Williams v. opposed.” 362, 405, U.S. 120 S.Ct. Washington recog (2000) (quotation L.Ed.2d marks nized that a right, pursuant defendant’s omitted). Alternatively, to be found an Clause, the Double Jeopardy to have his clearly “unreasonable of ... trial, commenced, once completed by a law,” established Federal state tribunal, particular right,” is a “valued “objectively decision must be unreason- which one must sometimes “be subordinat simply able” and not erroneous or incor- public’s ed to the interest in fair trials 409-11, rect. Id. at 120 In S.Ct. 1495. designed just to end in judgments.” Id. at short, may “a federal habeas 11, n. 98 824. proceed S.Ct. To with a writ simply issue the because that court retrial after a mistrial hаs been declared ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍independent judgment concludes objection over the defendant’s the first that the relevant ap- state-court decision trial, criminal prosecution must shoul plied clearly established federal law er- der the “heavy of demonstrating burden” Rather, roneously incorrectly. or necessity.” 505, “manifest Id. at 98 S.Ct. application must also been unrea- necessity” 824. “Manifest is not to be sonable.” Id. at 120 S.Ct. 1495. interpreted literally or applied mechanical

ly; required degree” what is is a “high of jurors may have In one or more 824. of necessity. Id. at 98 S.Ct. improper be comment.” Id. at by retrial should affected assessing whether scrutiny of em- barred, explained is 824. The Court sliding scale S.Ct. on the reasons depends why appropriate: this ployed, one deference is scrutiny is strictest mistrial. The for the compelling institutional There are con- premised mistrial was when the employed militating appel- siderations favor of or by judge pros- bad-faith conduct on judge’s late to the trial evalua- deference scrutiny is ecutor, the most relaxed juror significance possible tion premised mistrial was employed when the He has seen and heard the bias. 508-09, 98 jury. Id. at deadlocked during their voir dire examination. He S.Ct. 824. judge is the most familiar with evi- background of the case on dence and premised on When a mistrial is tone of the trial. He has listened evi prejudicial impact improper argument as was delivered has judge’s the trial evalu argument, dence or apparent reaction observed juror bias possibility ation short, jurors. In he is far more “conver- Id. at 511- “great deference.” entitled the factors sant with relevant Notwithstanding this 98 S.Ct. any reviewing court determination” than deference, reviewing court must possibly can be. did not act judge satisfied irrationally irresponsibly, but exercised (footnote, Id. at 98 S.Ct. 824 cita Id. at 98 S.Ct. “sound discretion.” omitted). failure to make 824. The Thus, acting federal court in habeas necessity” finding explicit of “manifest reviewing rulings on the state court in mistrial declaration does not render a pos- a mistrial based on declaration of valid, provides suffi long as the record sibility obliged to scrutinize juror bias is ruling. justification for the Id. cient through rulings the state court two lenses 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 824. deference. Washing- Applying principles, these rul- the Ninth Circuit’s ton Court reversed Opinion Court B. District ing upheld the trial court’s declaration marked The district court’s argument improper of a mistrial basеd on misapprehends flaw. It a fundamental opening in his made defense counsel consequently law and controlling result, reaching statement. to the Ohio to accord due deference fails “ex- that the trial Court determined ruling, per AEDPA. Appeals’ Court he though even ercised sound discretion” of Ap that the Ohio finding holding explicit made of manifest neces- no represents an unreasonable peals’ ruling sity though even mistrial was clearly established federal possi- “necessary” inasmuch strictly law, adopted five words neu- district bility might have been bias plurality opin from the Court’s appropriate of an giving tralized Jorn, “Nevertheless,” 400 U.S. in United States v. ion cautionary instruction. (1971), 543 observed, 27 L.Ed.2d overriding “the inter- S.Ct. the Court discretion,” judicial of “scrupulous exercise of est in the evenhanded administration the embody to state “holding” the said highest we accord the justice requires that law” when “clearly established respect judge’s the trial evalu- of degree of to opin- Appeals of issued impartiality the Ohio Court likelihood that the ation of the Jorn, ty district court concluded that the to do ion. The so.” 400 U.S. at appeals’ application plurality goes of this stan- 547. The opinion of S.Ct. on to the objectively holding: unreasonable because state dard was “When one ex amines the way any per- surrounding no circumstances “there is reasonable the discharge jury, of judge abundantly the this seems son conclude that trial had would made no apparent judge the trial ‘scrupulous’ judicial exercise employed sound discretion to a exercise determine that a to discretion to mistrial was effort ” that, taking assure all necessity.’ Opinion circumstances p. a JA ‘manifest account, into there was a manifest necessi sponte ty the sua declaration of this assessment, district making In added). mistrial.” Id. (emphasis substantially scrutiny confined its to facts to Judge the record known Bond Hence, the “scrupulous exercise of declared the mistrial. As evi- when she judicial language actually discretion” is ie., did Jom, scrupu- dence that not act in a dictum remark not essential cited Jom, lously, following the district court the Jom holding. to reprosecu (1) effort facts: she made no to ascertain not tion barred the trial judge because in the truth what was contained failed to “scrupulously,” act but because he (2) note; she foreperson’s made no effort no to exercise sound discre “made effort extra-judicial to in- determine whether the Thus, tion.'” “scrupulous exercise of corrup- had resulted in formation indeed judicial discretion” standard not reflec (3) juror; although gave tion of a she holding tive Jom’s not and is reflective parties opportunity posi- to state their clearly established federal law. That tions, fully explore did not she available “scrupulous judicial exercise of discre Id. JA alternatives. 468-69. part tion” standard is not the clearly established federal law is confirmed First, found in language plurali- fact that the appearance term makes no in ty Jom Court Washington, Arizona v. represents which “holding” clearly that reflects established only recent, a more but also a more “scrupulous federal law. The term exer- thorough, treatment the governing stan judicial cise of appear discretion” does dards. Jom opinion, it is integral holding Jom holding. only Moreover, can the Ohio of Appeals’ in light ascertained of the facts ruling contrary of the case. is not or unreason- Jom, judge refused able of federal law pre- allow to testify witnesses for the Jom because taxpayer scribed Bond’s dec- government he did not because believe the laration mistrial cannot be said to have prosecuting attorney’s assurances been marked no effort exercise given adequate warnings had been sound judge discretion. Unlike the trial Jom, rights. their The judge constitutional then Bond did not act abruptly, but precipitously, warning without gave parties consulta- opportunity to consider parties, with counsel for the dis- foreperson’s note; the ramifications charged jury. “[Ijndeed, gave parties opportunity to state their abruptly acted so discharging positions record; and proposals on the in- jury that, prosecutor had the request been dis- them her to conduct voir vited posed continuance, suggest dire examination or the jurors; and explic- object defendant to discharge itly rejected considered and at least some jury, opportuni- there would have been no alternatives to declaration of mistrial. improvement at 98 S.Ct. the court Yes, room for U.S. there was The “To handling of the matter. exercise ‘sound discretion’ Bond’s observed: Judge recognize determining necessary, is to that that a mistrial is simply here point clearly distinguish- judge are allow of case the trial should the defense facts Jom, which presented positions from those their on prosecution able to state “hold- necessarily scope issue, of its define inter- competing consider their rep- thus opinion The Jom does ing.” ests, explore some reasonable alterna- for the district a sound foundation resent declaring tives before a mistrial.” Deci- of the Ohio Court court’s assessment of p. By explicitly finding JA sion controlling under federal Appeals’ decision Judge things, Bond these id. that had done law. appeals least JA the court of at implicitly held that she exercised Appeals’ Ruling Ohio Court of

C. Hence, petitioner discretion. has sound appeals’ to show that the court of failed Objections 1. Petitioner’s of erro- is based on that Court Petitioner maintains the Ohio neous standard of review. specific flawed. The Appeals’ ruling is of confront, however, we is whether question contention that the Petitioner’s appli- contrary or an unreasonable it is of failed to hold the Appeals Ohio Court law. clearly of established fеderal cation prosecution proving of mani its burden Yes, Court similarly unavailing. contends the Ohio is Petitioner fest Judge Bond’s decla- Appeals subjected justi the burden of prosecution bears abuse of mistrial to review for mere ration the mistrial over the defen fying declared thereby applied of discretion and objection. Washington, 434 dant’s U.S. in- Petitioner wrong context, standard of review. present 98 S.Ct. 824. on him to show it was not incumbent however, sists is a question largely the burden abused her discretion. dispute is matter of semantics. There no Rather, prosecution should argues, he en regarding the facts and circumstances to bear the burden have been made by the collectively court countered Bond’s declaration proving during Once jury deliberations. counsel “scrupulous exercise mistrial constituted a collectively not to made the decision judicial discretion.” any juror, the factual foundation dire voir a to declare Judge Bond’s decision ex- “scrupulous the Jom Application of not, mistrial, was established. sufficient or standard language governing ercise” Bond and later question Judge been shown to be erroneous. Careful has was one of law appeals confronted contains reading Washington, which the undisputed and discretion: whether explicit governing more instruction of manifest ne supported finding facts em- represents superior standards and could be de cessity, such that a mistrial clearly established bodiment state’s without clared law, reviewing reveals that Hence, the fact reprosecute. right itself, with defer- obliged satisfy great did not couch its appeals court of judge’s assessment ence prosecu whether the analysis terms of bias, possible signifi little tion carried its burden The Ohio discretion.” exercised “sound adequacy The focus is not on duty cance. Appeals cognizant of its but on prosecution’s performance, to ensure that Bond exercised Jeopardy of the Double Citing requirements Washington, sound discretion. 664 Further, Washington

Clause. all, makes authority First of a trial clear, of a the failure lower court to under Ohio explic- law to reconsider its after having discharged decision itly explain ruling jury in gov- its terms of the in open court is limited —even ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍before the erning determinative, standard is not journal entry has been made. It is a long provides as the record justi- sufficient determinаtion that must be made “on a fication for the ruling. 434 U.S. case-by-case basis upon based the facts of 98 S.Ct. 824. each particular Gugliotta situation.” v. Petitioner contends the ap- also Morano, 161 Ohio App.3d 829 N.E.2d peals evaluated Bond’s actions (Ohio Dist., 2005). Ct.App. 762 9 In based on an improperly truncated record. Gugliotta, had, the trial court after a mo Petitioner insists consideration of the mentary parte ex discussion with jury, evidentiary record created Judge Cirig- open-court reconsidered its decision to liano, grant a including evidence mistrial and regarding discharge jury. the dis- After speaking covery completed forms, of the while she verdict was in process dismissing them, essential to assessing the soundness of changed mind, her reconvened Judge Bond’s exercise of discretion. He jury in courtroom, and instructed contends the court appeals, by limiting them to resume their deliberations. its review of manifest facts response objection by of the parties, one known Bond when she declared the trial judge conducted voir dire exami mistrial, disregarded Judge Bond’s au- nation to confirm that her ex thority to revisit her mistrial ruling. Peti- parte communications had not in resulted argues law, tioner that under Ohio any prejudice. She then allowed them to mistrial, Bond’s oral declaration of albeit continue their until deliberations record, on the had not become final and reached a verdict. After careful review of effective at the time the verdict forms record, the Ohio Court of Appeals held were discovered it because had not been that, despite the lack of demonstrable journal memorialized entry. in See State prejudice resulting from the interim ex Stewart, (Ohio v. 2002 WL 31886657 *3 parte contact, potential 2002) (“It Ct.App. Dist., Dec. is was great. too Id. at 764. The court axiomatic that a court speaks only through upheld finality of the original oral deci journal, its through oral pro- sion discharge jury so as to avoid nouncements.”). Upon discovering the setting the stage for inquests “limitless forms, Judge Bond thus retained regarding the trial discharge, power her alter mistrial ruling. In- failure discharge, a jury.” Id. The trial asmuch as the verdict forms demonstrated court was held to have abused its discre that the extraneous information mentioned when jury. reconvened the in the foreman’s note had not resulted Stewart, too, the trial court recon- prejudice to him relation to the most jury vened a a few having minutes after serious charges he was facing, petitioner declared a mistrial and discharged the contends the manifest necessity determi- jury. 2002 WL at *2. The trial nation could and should have been revisit- court had mistakenly jury believed ed, and the Ohio Court of Appeals’ conclu- deadlocked pend- deliberations all sion that Judge Bond did not her abuse ing charges. It jury reconvened the upon discretion she when failed to so do discovering signed ballots objectively unreasonable. room. reconvened, however, Yet, willing to assume both were jurors. resuming delibera- purpose for the risk. con- purpose the solely for tions, but dead- had not that the

firming forms that the verdict undisputed It charges, on all deliberations in their locked decision to Judge in Bond’s no role played ver- a unanimous reached in had fact the opinion, In. her a mistrial. declare finding charges, four of the three on dict parte ex forms, during discovered charges. two guilty defendant the and the herself between communications accepted the court jurors, the polling Upon had been declared the jurors, aftеr mistrial agreed upon had been verdicts the discharged, officially jurors were and the outstanding on the mistrial a and declared dismissed, actually they were but before the upheld appeals The charge. a late make light too to came to simply de- oral order holding the judgment, 262- JA Hrg. pp. tr. difference. jury discharging and a mistrial claring the “well with established” 64. Consistent because reconsidered not final when 762, 829 N.E.2d Gugliotta, teaching at *3. Id. journalized. not been had could jury that the Bond believed Judge point because at that be reassembled may not in Stewart opinion unpublished and discharged already been jury had pub- recent the more with be reconcilable p. tr. adjourned. Hrg. had been case basis Gugliotta in lished 108, JA 214. At the facts. materially distinguishable however, teaches that least, Gugliotta very interven Moreover, fact of the the mere authority to reconsider a communications, creating at ing parte ex narrowly cir- jury is discharging order preju for “potential least substantial by the justified must be cumscribed possibility dice,” foreclosed all but scruti- Careful presented. facts particular Gugliotta, 829 reconvening jury. facts, the extent to the instant ny of not dis dоes The record at 764.4 N.E.2d record, reveals that in the developed are discus parte of the ex details close the present- those resemble closely they more “ex jurors were that the know sions. We presented than Gugliotta those ed news that receiving the upset” on tremely Stewart. declared had been mistrial tried to Bond Judge .“accommodate surpris- represented forms The verdict 61, 104, tr. Hrg. pp. in the room.” emotion surprise sort development ing —the make Bond did Judge 210. by JA attempted prevent Bond had extraneous as to source ju- inquiry dire examination voir proposing room. jury information in polygraph first note was foreperson’s when rors one told Judge Bond 232. JA Id. Yet, parties both to her. delivered was additional there juror that concerned pre- proposal, steadfastly objected been introduced had not evidence that their chances ferring take Id. would be re-tried. Ross that defendant of mistrial. question ruling on Bond’s complete de Though 167. JA that, once certainly foreseeable It was undis remain communications tails of the came deliberations jurors’ status facts, of which closed, these would come or the other party one light, aware, substantiate necessarily the was dire voir failure to the earlier regret counte- Found., should are anathema Clinic v. Cleveland also See Watkins extraordinary except times 1063 nanced App.3d N.E.2d 130 Ohio 1998) ("Ex Dist., parte (Ohio necessity.”). Ct.App. pressing 7n. the trial court communications “potential prejudice” much more define the extent of emanat- which, strongly than the ing circumstances from the corruption suggest- that, Gugliotta, were held to ed at least in foreclose reconven- relation three of five ing charges pending against after it had been still discharged. petitioner, the extraneous polygraph information had Judge Bond also believed partial resulted in to him. The verdict ostensibly jury reached be- juror extent to which the corruption had fore their deliberations were interrupted, resulted, however, in prejudice pros- guilty whether or guilty, could not be interest public’s ecution’s and the interest accepted any because verdict irrever- in a fair trial remained indeterminate. sibly by juror tainted corruption. Hrg. tr. Judge Bond arguably could have made 108, 134, Indeed, JA 240. inquiry jurors of the ques- to answer this verdict forms in discovеred this case stood tion, so, doing in but would have run afoul quite on footing different than those of Gugliotta’s proscription against “limit- Stewart, discovered in jury where the inquests less regarding a trial court’s dis- been prematurely discharged on the trial charge, failure to discharge, jury.” judge’s mistaken understanding it that was 829 N.E.2d at Further, 764. prac- it is Stewart, deadlocked on all charges. In it tically inconceivable that the taints stem- simple was a matter to confirm that the ming juror from both the corruption and ballots jury discovered room accu- parte the ex communications could have rately reflected the final and unanimous been cured in way such a as to render the decision of on three of the four tentative verdict acceptable forms as re- pending charges accept and to them as the jury’s flective final verdict. jury’s Stewart, verdict. there was no sure, To be Judge Bond’s handling of concern about jury’s impartiality hav- discovery of the signed verdict forms— ing been tainted extraneous information releasing advising before coun- byor intervening parte ex communications sel of the discovery giving them oppor- with the trial court or its staff. tunity comment on significаnce— their Here, contrast, the mistrial was de- was Yet, far from commendable. when clared and discharged because a the existence of the verdict forms was note from foreperson jurors’ indicated counsel, made known to neither party concerns about corruption corrup- — asked Bond to reconsider the mis- tion that arguably resulted in prejudice to ruling any or for other relief. Id. at parties both undeniably impugned the Hence, JA whether the late- integrity of jury’s deliberations. discovered verdict forms could have been fact, it appears to have been very legitimately used to justify Judge Bond’s unanimity verdicts, of the tentative being is, reconsideration of her mistrial ruling inconsistent with the jurors’ tenor of the present record, a matter of specula- deliberations, precipitated jurors’ tion. WTiatis clear from the above discus- concerns in the first place during the sion, however, petitioner’s is that argu- — pendency of ongoing deliberations. The ment, law, with reference to Ohio extent of the prejudice remained uncertain Judge Bond’s failure sponte to sua recon- parties because the adamantly objected to sider her mistrial was an abuse of discre- voir dire of the and Judge Bond tion unpersuasive. Instead, appears elected not to objection overrule the and likely that if Judge Bond had explicitly conduct voir sponte. sua dire When reexamined her ruling in light mistrial discovered, forms were helped forms, late-discovered verdict she to the facts known to her when she confirm nation been constrained would have Finally, ruling.5 ruling. impor- made the and most tantly, purposes our limited review more it follows importantly, Even AEDPA, appeals’ under the court of refus- not err Appeals did that the Ohio Court engage analysis in such speculative al to forms from excluding the verdict contrary has not been shown to or an ruling. Judge Bond’s mistrial review clearly unreasonable estab- hardly liberty court is appellate An law, any forth in set lished hindsight evaluat vision use 20/20 holding of the United States represent a mistrial decision ing whether Court. discretion, of sound ed exercise deference,

must, exercise of due necessarily to the facts confine review Appeals’ 2. Merits of Ohio Court of the mistrial judge known to the trial when Decision Judge It is that undisputed declared. was next the task We turn to of re nothing of verdict forms at knew the viewing the merits the Ohio Court the mistrial. Even the time she declared Appeals’ ruling. appeals court of did authority ought had and to if she the failing to Judge not fault Bond for deter when the decision explicitly reexamined the mine whether contents of the fore forms, it became aware the verdict she true, person’s observing note were that unavoidably appears she would have been the are jury typically notes received from law to confirm the constrained under Ohio accepted ap face value. The no in therefore find error decision. We note, advising the the peals characterized to confine its appeals’ the court of decision misconduct, juror “inherently court of review of her manifest determi- tentative, jury's partial Corey v. the verdict. Sec- reliance on District 5. Petitioner's Vermont, Cir.1990), ond, (2d necessitating Corey, in a # 917 F.2d 88 the misconduct Unit defendant, Corey, misplaced. only a trial similarly prejudicial state mistrial was necessary judge to judge had determined that it and the F.2d at thus could jury improp- guilty” declare a mistrial after the a "not verdict that the determine from erly exposed prejudicial tо the to information by the verdict was not affected misconduct. during F.2d case, defendant its deliberations. 917 jury prejudice note indicated In this the judge the could declare a mis- at 89. Before prosecution of both the to the interests trial, however, a jury returned verdict of While ten- Ross. the late-discovered defendant information, guilty. Despite this not Id. suggested not-guilty verdict that tative forms judge proceeded Id. to declare mistrial. information had not resulted the extraneous that, although Circuit held mani- Ross, The Second suggest prejudice to did not that existed, necessity may fest have once a mistri- Finally, prosecution prejudiced. necessary jury longer once al was no Corey, jury had reached a final whereas guilty, as it was then returned a verdict yet charges had not been all de- clear the defendant had been that discharged judge formally learned when right prived to a trial. Id. at 92. of his fair verdict, jury F.2d at here the of its when was in the middle of its deliberations significant There are differences between Judge been Bond declared mistrial had transpired that here those events officially discharged learned of the First, before she Corey. judge occurred in trial jurors "ex- verdict forms. Given that were parties' lawyers Corey only informed the had tremely upset” by news of the mistrial his to declare a mistrial when the intent privy parte were to ex discussions jury 917 F.2d at 89. returned verdict. Bond, extremely Here, hand, it is doubtful other had on the properly At have been reconvened. open had could declared a mistrial in court and sanctity point, deliberations officially of their adjourned the case and declared that compromised. learning seriously discharged was to be before had where, The court of further of her appeals because unilateral intrusion reliable.” party questioned sanctity deliberations, that neither into the a decla- observed objected of the note and both prejudice might truthfulness ration of mistrial with proposal Bond’s to voir dire the necessary. to have become that eventuali- jurors. or other In these mat- foreperson ty, potentially the court would have been ters, nothing smacks of an unreasonable for responsible defeating inter- “society’s ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍controlling law. giving prosecution complete est in one opportunity convict those vio- who have Bоnd’s conduct As failure laws.” Washington, lated its 434 U.S. at examination of to ascertain voir dire 509, 98 Considering S.Ct. polygraph infor- whether extraneous note, value, taken at face cor- evidenced actually their mation influenced delib- ruption juror least one due erations, again the court of appeals empha- (not misconduct misconduct of the or objections both parties’ express sized counsel)6; party either their and con- dire: original voir “To fault sidering corruption appeared judge, hindsight, failing to voir dire potentially interests objections over the of both par- defendant, prosecution public; and the a tactic that cannot ties is this court coun- considering objected that parties both p. tenance.” Decision eval- JA 361. questioning jurors, to the Judge Bond’s Judge discretion, uating Bond’s exercise of questioning decision to refrain from of the appeals clearly the court noted that she jurors represented and, the safer at option questioning considered the of least the jurors, more joint arguably, prudent but she deferred re- to the course. parties of the quest that refrain from she appeals’ Thе court of Judge deference to doing so. The court appeals of observed: jurors not Bond’s decision to voir dire the the “That trial the honored wishes is also consistent with Washington’s insis- expressed by parties the did not voir appellate tence on deference to the trial any comport dire of the to seems judge’s possible juror evaluation of bias: discretion, with an exercise of sound not an overriding “[T]he interest in the evenhand- 20-21, of abuse it.” Id. at JA 362-63. justice ed administration of requires we the highest degree respect accord Naturally, to Judge Bond the judge’s the trial evaluation likeli- prerogative to conduct of the voir dire examina hood that the impartiality tion or objec over one more parties’ jurors may to tions ensure a fair been affected the im- impartial by trial an Davis, See jury. proper United comment.” Id. at States v. 177 F.3d 98 S.Ct. 824. (6th Cir.1999) event, In any 557 the court of (recognizing appeals’ ratifica- duty juror Judge court’s to investigate possible tion of Bond’s failure to conduct misconduct). By doing parties’ so voir has over dire not been shown be an to objections, however, Judge Bond would ar controlling unreasonable fed- guably have risked creating situation eral In response petitioner’s argu- law. to juror aspects persuaded identified wrong, three because he it was but (l) misconduct evidenced with; (3) the note: get order to case over formed, complained-of juror had and ex- completing had insisted on deliberations pressed jurors, to other an about the quickly personal because he had affairs to guilt defendant's or innocence based on infor- precluded continuing partic- attend to his evidence; (2) mation not introduced in ipation Hrg. pp. in deliberations. tr. juror had good refused to deliberate in faith JA 215-16. opinion, and had surrendered his own error, strictest judicial misconduct adequately Bond did ment id. appropriate. See finding scrutiny is not before all alternatives consider mistrial, fact, akin to a court of this case is for S.Ct. 824. manifest (i.e., had no that she where fault held correctly jury situation appeals deadlocked alterna- every conceivable counsel or any party, to consider duty not attributed discretion, sound she exercised That opposite at the tive. and is therefore judge) concluded, evidenced cоurt scale, most re- warranting the end reasonable consider some did that she fact Yet, that the it is evident scrutiny. laxed declaring a mistrial. before alternatives merely rubber- did not appeals noted appeals The decision; carefully Judge Bond’s stamp examina- (1) dire voir considered Bond: good why her decision explained but deferred jurors, as an exercise muster enough pass (2) possi- wishes; considered parties’ discretion. sound juror with problem replacing bility of Washing- thrust of the predominant this reasonably rejected alternate, but by its is well-illustrated which opinion, ton taint; to remove remedy as insufficient on the need emphasis holding, is (3) request defendant’s considered recognize courts appellate deliberating jury to continue allow broad dis- to “exercise prerogative a mistrial right (without to his verdict), deciding whether or .‘mani- an adverse cretion returned if discharge as unfair proposal necessity’ justifies rejected this fest The Court S.Ct. 824. interests.7 public’s jury.” Id. in order- society’s interest recognized analysis in appeals’ the court Again, impaired would be procedure ly, impartial to be not been shown has regard by a con- were hindered judge the trial if application unreasonable to or an contrary disa- reviewing any time cern Washington, In law. controlling federal of assessment, would a retrial with his greed need it clear made the Court Id. automatically barred. be alter- possible all exhaustively consider not ex- the Court Accordingly, necessity” 824. S.Ct. finding “manifest before natives of stringent standard abjured alternative where an pressly Even a mistrial. area, that it saying cautionary instruc- in this as a review remedy simple appellate as effective, rendering judge impede seriously might have would “necessary” in to take duty of a mistrial of his performance declaration sense, Washington strict, protect literal action and affirmative prompt second-guess the sound- The Court declined trial. Id. integrity Court of of discre- court’s exercise judge’s the trial the trial ness that reversal observed 511, 98 S.Ct. 824. if, 434 U.S. at in- tion. appropriate would determination ’ discretion, he exercising sound stead also decision appeals’ The court of citing irresponsibly,” “irrationally or acted scale “sliding Washington’s consistent 514, 98 S.Ct. example. Id. mistri- Jom teaching. Because scrutiny” 824. by prosecutorial precipitated was al Judge ways, cut both import of the note Judge Bond’s quarrel with continuing to concluded, appeals as the court rightly petitioner proposal, rejection latter of this held, putative reservation petitioner's import of that the ignore the fact continues the verdict in the event right to a mistrial as unfavora- was at least foreperson’s note unfair satisfactory him was was not inter- to his prosecution as it was ble to unreasonable. prejudicial supra. Because the See n. ests.

Here, petitioner has not even accused The Ohio Appeals upheld Court of acting Judge “irrationally Bond of or irres- conviction and this Court held that time ponsibly” leading up to her court of appeals’ ruling was not contrary to the mistrial.8 all declaration of Under controlling federal law. Although the trial circumstances, if the Ohio Ap- Court of judge deliberately did not explore all avail- peals had overruled Bond’s assess- alternatives, able and although the mistrial ment of manifest (imperfect strictly was not “necessary,” the trial was), court, effect, though it would judge was deemed to have exercised applied the sort stringent standard “sound discretion” because he did not act expressly abjured of review in Washing- irrationally or irresponsibly, he was moti- necessarily ton. It follows the court by genuine vated concern possi- about the appeals’ ruling contrary is not to nor an bias, bility and he considered some unreasonable controlling fed- alternatives to mistrial. His determina- law, clearly eral established in Wash- tion, unique circumstances, under ington, the leading Supreme therefore held to be neither contrary to jeopardy. on double nor an unreasonable application any This conclusion is consistent with and holding of the United States further buttressed the Sixth Circuit’s Court. Id. at 438-39. Kontek, recent decision Walls v. (6th Cir.2007), F.3d 432 applying deferen- Our today entirely decision consistent tial AEDPA reversing review and a dis- analysis with the employed in Walls. The trict court’s order granting habeas relief circumstances with which Bond was jeopardy Walls, double grounds. faced were quite as unique as those state trial declared a mistrial at Walls, presented in but the likelihood of the start of the day second of a criminal juror misconduct corruption was even trial, on day that infamous in our nation’s cleаrly more established. Bond’s history, September 11, 2001. When airlin- handling matter, like the trial began ers falling sky out of the and crash- court’s handling of the circumstances it ing into buildings, excused, Walls, faced in could have been better. adjourned, and the court- Yet, clear, as Washington makes the man- house was evacuated. Due to confusion ner in which the ruling mistrial was made by caused unfolding events, world the trial Walls, is not determinative. See 490 F.3d judge was concerned that would be at 438. long As as “the provides record unable to concentrate and that parties’ the justification sufficient for the state-court right to a fair trial compromised. was Af- ruling,” demonstrating that the court did ter consulting counsel, with the judge not act “irrationally or irresponsibly,” declared a mistrial objec- over defendant’s Jom, did the trial judge tion. A but second trial was exercised commenced two discretion,” months later and “sound ruling defendant the was convicted. is not consti- appeal, On the defendant challenged tutionally Washington, his defective. 434 U.S. conviction on double jeopardy grounds. 514, 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 824.

8. attempted Petitioner has upon information, to cast doubt it ignore that was hard to the soundness of the mistrial declаration correctly held that "[f]acts unknown to emphasizing Judge questionable Bond’s han- parties simply and the cannot dling discovery of the and of the verdict enter into the review of the trial court’s deci- forms already after the mistrial had been de- 8,p. sion.” Decision JA 350. clared. The appeals court of acknowledged the verdict forms for signed Ap- Ohio Court follows It two, not charges guilty of the dec- three Judge Bond’s ruling upholding peals’ — form only left as to one—but guilty is consonant mistrial laration of blank. specification the firearm regarding been and Washington has teaching back, the immediately called jury was hold- The any misapply contravene shown read, jurors polled. and the were Accordingly, verdicts Court. of the ing inter appealed, arguing, The defendant prin- conclude, regard for with due we entering alia, the trial court erred finality and federalism comity, ciples a mistrial had after serve, guilty verdicts see designed AEDPA is rejected The Ohio declared. the court Walls, 439 n. 490 F.3d at entry challenge to the defendant’s represent does not decision appeals’ equally language verdicts with guilty clearly estab- unreasonable to this casе: applicable that reprosecution federal law lished barred Denny Ross petitioner speaks only that a court It axiomatic Jeopardy Clause. Double oral journal, through and not through its v. Kauth Schenley pronouncements. III. CONCLUSION (1953), 113 N.E.2d St. 160 Ohio The trial syllabus. one paragraph reasons, district foregoing For of a oral declaration mistaken court’s for petition judgment, granting in a mis- actually did not result mistrial is REVERSED. corpus, habeas writ was judgment a mistrial trial because Thus, trial court journalized. never JR., Judge, GUY, Circuit B. RALPH that it realizing prevented from was not dissenting. communication had misunderstood I believe because dissent respectfully I its errone- correcting jury, from the a mistri- if manifest that even to dismiss the ous decision dissipated once point, at one al existed assertion Appellant’s a mistrial. declare Im- of the verdicts. Bond learned a matter of court erred as that the trial aof declaration Judge Bond’s portantly, after jury’s by accepting law pronounced final when mistrial well taken. is not declaring a mistrial The mistrial orally from the bench. journal, in the until not official entered that, ju- because argues Appellant jour- not entered into

the mistrial on thе their minds change rors could Thursday, November ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍until nal they signed the time verdict between Stewart, at *3 2002 WL 31886657 v. State polled, were time 2002). Stewart, ballots (Ohio Ct.App. Dec. agreed on to have not be said they can kidnaping charged with defendant was polled court has the verdict until the a firearm burglary with aggravated re- verdict. We accepted the them jury begun had the After specification. view this restrictive follow fuse to to the court- deliberations, they returned on jury’s agreement what constitutes judge and informed room the time each jury, at The a verdict. firearm on the reach consensus could not forms, had the verdict jurors signed mistakenly be- judge The specification. fact that The upon its verdict. agreed a consen- they could not reach lieved or her his changed could have juror charges. dismissed any of She on sus is immate- signing ballot mind after A orally declared mistrial. jury and verdict, its jury agreed had The rial. later, it was minutes discovered few polled, juror subsequently and each He appealed, was but the Vermont judgment that the represent- confirmed Court affirmed. The federal district court was, fact, ed the ballots his or her denied his petition, habeas but thе Second Thus, we verdict. conclude the Circuit finding reversed that although acceptance jury’s verdict manifest necessity may prior have existed did not violate R.C. 2945.33. to the moment judge learned of the verdicts, Id. at *3. longer there was no manifest ne- cessity after the verdicts were read. The view, my once the trial judge was Second explained: Circuit trial “The acquittal, pos- aware of the verdicts of longer no speculate has to about possi- sibility juror bias toward Ross was ble impact of misconduct possibility affecting eliminated. Once the of bias eliminated, jury. against The trial court can Ross was the manifest look to the ver- necessity for the mistrial was also elimi- dict for an answer. The failure to take nated, at least on the counts for which the into account jury’s verdict in this case jury acquitted The trial Ross. court’s error constitutes abuse of discretion.” 917 verdicts, failing was not in to enter the but F.2d at possibility 92. The that the trial ignoring the existence of the verdicts. A judge already declared a mistrial oral- similar presented situation was in Corey v. ly was of little import: Vermont, District Court #Unit enough [I]t to state that the trial (2d Cir.1990), F.2d in which the court had declared a mistrial bеfore the defendant was tried state court for jury notified the court it had aggravated murder and assault. He was reached a jury verdict. The permit- shooting accused of the victim from a dis- deliberations, ted to continue its un- tance jury of 92 feet. While the was de- aware of the proceedings chambers. liberating, jury one knocked on the verdict, When it reached its room door and asked the sheriff how far judge given a unique opportunity. 92 feet was. The began pacing sheriff off An acquittal would reveal the absence of 92 feet. The judge notified prejudice to the defendant. With no what was happening immediately or- prejudice to the defendant and no artic- dered jury jury back room. ulation any prejudice by the state to After discussing the matter with the attor- case, only remaining basis for a neys, judge gave curative in- finding of manifest would be structions. judge attorneys then public interest in a trial free of even resumed their judge’s discussion in the perception of an inappropriate influ- chambers. The judge decided that a mis- ence on jury. Nevertheless, the lim- trial was necessary but that it should be public ited interest in having a trial free open declаred in judge court. As the possible taint, of all attorneys prejudicial whether were preparing to return to not, court, itself cannot Corey’s overcome reported that it had constitutionally protected right reached a verdict. valued When the defendant asked that the have his trial judge grant completed by a particular the mistri- al, stated that he had tribunal. already declared the mistrial but would have the (internal Id. at 91 quotation marks and reported for the record. The ver- omitted). citation dicts guilty” were “not on each count. The defendant filed a judgment motion for alleged state has not any specific of acquittal, which the trial court denied. against it public’s other than the percep- public fair trials right Mack, TULLIS, Michael S. H. David to vote his unwilling Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- with a along gone have may conscience Appellees, I sooner. deliberations just to end verdict legitimate, concerns are that those agree v. override enough to strong are not they BANK, N.A., Defendant- being UMB against protection a defendant’s Appellee/Cross-Appellant. The state crimes. same for the tried twice reach a jury did not аlso stresses 06-4632, 06-4633. Nos. was Ross count for which every on of- the lesser-included including charged, of Appeals, United States does not That fact manslaughter. fense Sixth Circuit. it was that once my conclusion change 25, 2007. Argued: Oct. been reached that verdicts known counts, reexamination serious the most Filed: Jan. Decided and Fi- required. for a mistrial the need that because emphasizes state nally, the was written note to juror’s verdicts, it the three jury reached

after deliberating still is clear as to the its mind changed have and could still jury was That the three verdicts. mistrial the time the deliberating at fact dispute. But beyond declared of, at the possibility not foreclose did open least, very questioning discovered. verdicts were after instance, determined, for may have been It were still tentative verdicts that the minds, completely were Once counts. considering those finished discovered, the verdicts were immediately brought should attorneys’ attention verdicts Irrespective all alternatives. considered distinguish Stew- attempt majority’s compel case facts in this Corey, the art find- that the state me to conclude necessity con- manifest that there was ing an unreasonable stituted law. clearly established

Case Details

Case Name: Ross v. Petro

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 25, 2008

Citation: 515 F.3d 653

Docket Number: 05-4212, 05-4213

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.