LaMar v. Houk
Decision Date | 18 August 2015 |
Docket Number | Nos. 11–3131,11–3153.,s. 11–3131 |
Citation | 798 F.3d 405 |
Parties | Keith LaMAR, Petitioner–Appellant/Cross–Appellee, v. Marc C. HOUK, Warden, Respondent–Appellee/Cross–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED:David L. Doughten, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross–Appellee. Stephen E. Maher, office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross–Appellant. ON BRIEF:David L. Doughten, Cleveland, Ohio, Kathleen McGarry, McGarry Law Office, Glorieta, New Mexico, for Appellant/Cross–Appellee. Stephen E. Maher, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross–Appellant. James L. Hardiman, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, Staughton Lynd, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc., Niles, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae.
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
Keith LaMar appeals a district court judgment denying his habeas corpus petition. LaMar was convicted of murdering five fellow inmates during a prison riot in Ohio; he received death sentences for four of the killings and a life sentence for the fifth. On appeal, LaMar argues that the State withheld favorable evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). He also argues that the state trial court denied him due process by refusing to sever one count from the remaining charges, that there was insufficient evidence for one of the capital sentencing aggravators, and that he was denied due process by prosecutorial misconduct during his trial. The Warden, Marc Houk, cross-appeals, arguing that LaMar's petition was time-barred. The district court properly denied habeas relief.
The facts leading to LaMar's convictions were summarized by the Ohio Supreme Court as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
... ... Page 19 LaMar v ... Houk , 798 F.3d 405, 415 (6th Cir. 2015). A violation is established by showing that the favorable evidence "could reasonably be taken to put ... ...
-
Cunningham v. Shoop
... ... See Hand v. Houk , 871 F.3d 390, 417 (6th Cir. 2017). That the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the merits of three of Cunningham's allegations for plain error does not ... Either way, the Constitution allows juries to consider nonstatutory aggravating factors. See LaMar v. Houk , 798 F.3d 405, 431 (6th Cir. 2015). Because this troika of statements did not prejudice Cunningham, his procedural default is unexcused. We ... ...
-
Bryan v. Bobby
... ... at 464, 182 ("[O]ur independent assessment of the sentence has cured any lingering impact from the prosecutor's comments"). See LaMar v. Houk , 798 F.3d 405, 431 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Lundgren v. Mitchell , 440 F.3d 754, 783 (6th Cir. 2006) ), cert. denied , U.S. , 136 S.Ct ... ...
-
Shine-Johnson v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst.
... ... LaMar , 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, 121. Because prosecutorial misconduct implicates due-process Page 7 concerns, "[t]he ... 865, 126 S.Ct. 163, 163 L.Ed.2d 150 (2005); Goff v ... Bagley , Page 20 601 F.3d 445, 480 (6 th Cir. 2010). See also LaMar v ... Houk , 798 F.3d 405, 430 (6th Cir., 2015). As the cited authority makes clear, the first step in analyzing a prosecutorial misconduct claim is to ... ...
-
Sentencing
...sentence constitutional despite admission of invalid aggravating factor because no impact on jury’s sentence of death); LaMar v. Houk, 798 F.3d 405, 428 (6th Cir. 2015) (death sentence constitutional even assuming invalid aggravating factor because jury could consider same facts and circums......