Bryan v. Bobby
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | JAMES G. CARR, Senior District Judge. |
| Citation | Bryan v. Bobby, 114 F.Supp.3d 467 (N.D. Ohio 2015) |
| Decision Date | 16 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:11CV60. |
| Parties | Quisi BRYAN, Petitioner v. David BOBBY, Warden, Respondent. |
Alan C. Rossman, Lori B. Riga, Vicki R.A. Werneke, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Cleveland, OH, Robert B. Barnhart, Kathryn L. Sandford, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Columbus, OH, for Petitioner.
Charles L. Wille, David M. Henry, Office of the Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for Respondent.
This is a capital habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In 2000, a jury in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, convicted the petitioner, Quisi Bryan, of the aggravated murder of Wayne Leon, an Officer of the Cleveland Police Department. The jury recommended that Bryan receive a death sentence, and the trial court adopted the recommendation and sentenced Bryan to death.
Bryan now seeks habeas relief on sixteen grounds.
For the following reasons, I grant the petition on Bryan's claim that the prosecution violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), by using a peremptory strike to remove an African–American from the venire. The State of Ohio must therefore release Bryan from custody unless, within 120 days of the entry of this order, it elects to retry him.
In August, 2000, the Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Bryan on three counts of aggravated murder, two counts of attempted murder, and multiple counts of firearms-related offenses.
Each aggravated-murder count carried four death-penalty specifications that, if proved, would make Bryan eligible for a death sentence.
The specifications alleged Bryan had killed Officer Leon: 1) while Leon was engaged in his official duties as a police officer, see O.R.C. § 2929.04(A)(6) ; 2) with the specific purpose to kill a police officer, see id.; 3) to escape detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment for another offense, see O.R.C. § 2929.04(A)(3) ; and 4) as part of a "course of conduct" in which Bryan had killed or attempted to kill two or more people, see O.R.C. § 2929.04(A)(5).
With the assistance of two lawyers qualified to handle capital cases, Bryan went to trial on these charges in October, 2000, less than three months after Officer Leon's murder. According to the Ohio Supreme Court, whose factual determinations are presumptively correct on habeas review, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), the prosecution's evidence showed that:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Bryan v. Bobby
...habeas corpus petition with sixteen claims. The district court granted Bryan's petition on his fifth claim (Batson ), Bryan v. Bobby , 114 F.Supp.3d 467 (N.D. Ohio 2015), but otherwise denied relief on the other fifteen claims.The Warden timely appealed. The district court granted a COA on ......
-
Bryant v. United States
...reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, result would have been different); see also Bryan v. Bobby, 114 F.Supp.3d 467, 538-39 (N.D. Ohio 2015) (right to be present not violated where trial court had answered nine jury questions outside habeas petitioner's prese......