Hill v. Mitchell
Citation | 842 F.3d 910 |
Decision Date | 01 December 2016 |
Docket Number | Nos. 13-3412/3492,s. 13-3412/3492 |
Parties | Genesis HILL, Petitioner–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, v. Betty MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent–Appellant/Cross–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Jocelyn S. Kelly, Office of the
Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross–Appellee. Justin C. Thompson, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross–Appellant. ON BRIEF: Jocelyn S. Kelly, David M. Henry, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross–Appellee. Justin C. Thompson, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, Lawrence Bradfield Hughes, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross–Appellant. John A. Freedman, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
McKEAGUE, J., delivered the lead opinion in which BATCHELDER, J., joined in all but § III.D. BATCHELDER, J. (pp. 48–50), delivered a separate concurring opinion. COLE, C.J. (pp. 51–62), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
An Ohio jury convicted Genesis Hill of kidnapping and murdering his infant daughter and sentenced him to death. The district court held that the prosecution violated the rule of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by suppressing favorable evidence—a police report and the baby's mother's grand jury testimony—and granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus. However, Hill violated a congressionally mandated procedural requisite to habeas relief by bringing his Brady claim well beyond AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations period. Because Hill's Brady claim is procedurally barred and is otherwise without merit, and because his other grounds for relief are also without merit, we reverse the grant of habeas relief.
Factual Background. The Ohio Supreme Court provided a detailed background of the events leading to Hill's conviction and sentence:
, and she had been dead for more than twelve hours. Either a strong, blunt force had struck her head, or her head had been crushed. She might have been injured in a fall, but it seems only if another force had hit her during or after the fall. She was wearing only a diaper and two barrettes.
The baby formula box, in which Domika was found, was similar to one that Hill's aunt had placed in the trash pile next to Hill's garage. The box was in the trash on June 1, but not on June 2. Batch numbers on an SMA® can from the aunt's pantry matched batch numbers on the box in which Domika was found. Hill's uncle was unable to find the black electrical tape that he kept in a tool box.
A forensic expert testified that the last trash bag wrapped around Domika had once been directly attached to a trash bag found in Hill's kitchen. Microscopic grain, crease, and other distinctive marks made in the manufacturing process matched exactly on the two trash bags.
At Teresa's apartment, police found Hill's right thumb print on a hallway light bulb near where Teresa and Domika had slept. When Teresa went to sleep that night, the hallway door had been partly open and the light had been on. When she awoke and discovered Domika missing, the light bulb was unscrewed.
On the evening of June 2, the day Domika's body was found, a Cincinnati bus driver overheard a conversation on his bus. One young man, crying and upset, told another, "he could not believe what he had done to a little baby." The man further stated, "he thought he might get the chair for it." After the bus driver heard the news about a dead baby, police were called. The bus driver picked Hill out of a photo array as the young man crying on the bus.
A grand jury indicted Hill on two felony-murder counts in violation of [Ohio Revised Code] 2903.01 : murder during an aggravated burglary (Count I) and during a kidnapping (Count II). Each aggravated murder count contained two death-penalty specifications under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) ( ). Count III charged aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11, and Count IV charged kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01. Hill pled not guilty.
State v. Hill , 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 661 N.E.2d 1068, 1072–74 (1996).
During the penalty phase, numerous relatives and friends testified regarding Hill's character and upbringing and Dr. Nancy Schmidtgoessling testified regarding Hill's mental health and background. Hill also submitted an unsworn statement, where he said, and he "struggled to survive." Id. at 1074. He was "sorry that you all have to be here," "sorry that the baby [was] gone," and "sorry for the family." Id. He did not admit or deny killing Domika. After hearing the evidence, the jury recommended the death penalty.
Procedural Background. The Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Hill's convictions and sentence. State v. Hill , Nos. C–910916, C–940487, 1994 WL 721580, at *15 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 21, 1994), aff'd , 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 661 N.E.2d 1068, 1085 (1996), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 895, 117 S.Ct. 241, 136 L.Ed.2d 170 (1996). Hill sought post-conviction relief in state court on various grounds, including alleged unrelated Brady violations, but was unsuccessful. State v. Hill , No. C–100554, 2011 WL 3477183, at *7–8 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2011), perm. app. denied , 132 Ohio St.3d 1513, 974 N.E.2d 112 (2012) (table decision) (third petition); R. 263, Ohio Ct. App. Decision, Page ID 6849, perm. app. denied , 102 Ohio St.3d 1447, 808 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio 2004) (table decision) (second petition); State v. Hill , 90 Ohio St.3d 571, 740 N.E.2d 282, 283 (2001) ( ); State v. Hill , No. C–961052, 1997 WL 727587, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 21, 1997), perm. app. denied , 81 Ohio St.3d 1468, 690 N.E.2d 1288 (Ohio 1998) (table decision) (first petition).
Hill filed a habeas petition in the district court in June 1998 raising numerous grounds for relief, including a Brady claim alleging that the State suppressed favorable evidence. He filed an amended petition in April 1999, raising a Brad...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pouncy v. Macauley
...(See Pouncy Supp. Br., ECF No. 380, Page ID.14056.) In support of that argument, he cites two Sixth Circuit decisions: Hill v. Mitchell , 842 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2016) and Jones v. Bagley , 696 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012). But neither of these cases holds that exhaustion is not required under t......
-
Smith v. Warden
...facts that relate to his original position, the statute of limitations does not bar amendment of the petition. See Hill v. Mitchell, 842 F.3d 910, 922 (6th Cir. 2016) ("[W]hen a prisoner files an original petition within the one-year deadline, and later presents new claims in an amended pet......
-
Ray v. Bauman
...promptly moves for relief from judgment within the limitations period and any applicable procedural time limits). Hill v. Mitchell , 842 F.3d 910, 921 (6th Cir. 2016) ("These limited circumstances include ‘newly discovered evidence,’ such as the police report or the grand jury testimony, un......
-
Mammone v. Jenkins
...could not have brought th[ese] claim[s] on direct appeal and did not perform deficiently by complying with Ohio law." Hill v. Mitchell, 842 F.3d 910, 946-47 (6th Cir. 2016). The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to that effect was not unreasonable.3. Failure to Renew Objections This appellate-c......