Cunningham v. Shoop
Decision Date | 10 January 2022 |
Docket Number | Nos. 11-3005/20-3429,s. 11-3005/20-3429 |
Citation | 23 F.4th 636 |
Parties | Jeronique D. CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tim SHOOP, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Michael J. Benza, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. BENZA, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, for Appellant. Margaret Moore, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael J. Benza, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. BENZA, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, Karl Schwartz, WISEMAN & SCHWARTZ, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Margaret Moore, Stephen E. Maher, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which WHITE, J., joined. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 678–86), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Jeronique Cunningham and his half-brother Cleveland Jackson robbed and shot several friends and their family members. A three-year-old girl, Jala Grant, and a seventeen-year-old woman, Leneshia Williams, were killed; six others were injured. Cunningham was indicted and tried on two aggravated-murder counts, an aggravated-robbery count, and six attempted-aggravated-murder counts. The aggravated-murder charges carried death-penalty and firearms specifications. Cunningham and Jackson were tried separately. The jury found Cunningham guilty on all counts and specifications and sentenced him to death. See State v. Cunningham (Cunningham II ), 105 Ohio St.3d 197, 824 N.E.2d 504, 510–13 (2004).
We consider eight issues in this habeas case. The first and second issues are juror-bias claims involving Cunningham's jury foreperson Nichole Mikesell. Cunningham argues that Mikesell's colleagues at the county's children-services agency improperly relayed external information about Cunningham to her. He also argues that Mikesell's relationship with the victims’ families affected the jury's impartiality. He seeks a hearing to investigate jury bias on both fronts. Third, we consider whether Cunningham's counsel ineffectively failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. Fourth, we review whether Cunningham's trial counsel ineffectively failed to investigate, obtain, and present expert testimony about ballistics. Fifth, we evaluate whether the trial court improperly restricted Cunningham's ability to question prospective jurors during voir dire. Sixth, we decide whether the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must determine Cunningham's personal culpability before imposing a death sentence. Seventh, we determine whether the prosecution improperly failed to turn over witness statements to the defense. Finally, we consider whether the prosecution made improper closing arguments during the guilt and sentencing phases. CA6 No. 11-3005 R. 50 (7/27/11 Order at 2); R. 71 (10/13/11 Order at 1); R. 187 (7/28/20 Order at 3).
We cannot grant Cunningham relief for issues three through eight. But we conclude that Cunningham is entitled to proceed on his juror-bias claims. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND so that the district court can conduct an evidentiary hearing to investigate juror bias.
Nichole Mikesell served as the jury foreperson for Cunningham's trial. R. 194-2 (Trial Tr. at 1498) (Page ID #10708). On her jury questionnaire, Mikesell indicated that she worked as a child-abuse investigator at Allen County Children Services and as a crisis counselor at Crime Victims Services. R. 192-4 (Mikesell Questionnaire) (Page ID #5301, 5306). She wrote that she worked closely with the Allen County sheriff's office, the Lima police department, and the juvenile court. Id. (Page ID #5302–04). To the prompt "[d]o you know of any reason you could not sit as a juror and be absolutely fair to the Defendant and the State of Ohio and render a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented you[,]" Mikesell checked "no." Id. (Page ID #5308). At voir dire, the judge asked the prospective jurors "do any of you have any personal knowledge of the facts of this case?" R. 194-1 (Voir Dire at 13) (Page ID #9181). Mikesell said nothing. Id. at 14 (Page ID #9182). The court, the prosecution, and defense counsel confirmed that Mikesell knew several of the prosecutors and a defense lawyer from work, that she worked at children services, and that she had friends "on the police department," but Mikesell assured the court that she would be impartial. Id. at 24–25, 37, 72, 207–09 (Page ID #9192–93, 9205, 9240, 9375–77).
The jury found Cunningham guilty on all counts and specifications and sentenced him to death. See Cunningham II , 824 N.E.2d at 512–13. Cunningham appealed his conviction and sentence to the Ohio Supreme Court. See id. at 513.
R. 192-4 (Investigator Rep.) (Page ID #5132) (emphasis added). Freeman relayed that she voted last for finding Cunningham guilty of aggravated murder. Id. (Page ID #5125). "After a while," the report provides, "[Freeman] was convinced by the other jurors that Jeronique had in fact been guilty of aggravated murder as opposed to murder." Id.
Cunningham timely petitioned for state postconviction relief on August 1, 2003, raising a jury-bias claim based on the investigator's affidavit and report. R. 192-4 (2003 Postconviction Pet.) (Page ID #5047, 5085–91). Pointing to Mikesell's interview, Cunningham asserted that Mikesell's colleagues told her "extraneous" and "highly prejudicial information" that Mikesell had failed to divulge during voir dire or in her jury questionnaire. Id. (Page ID #5087). Asserting that his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights were violated, Cunningham requested a new trial or, at a minimum, discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Id. (Page ID #5088, 5090–91).
State v. Cunningham (Cunningham I ), 2004 WL 2496525, at *15 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
The Ohio Supreme Court denied Cunningham's claims on direct appeal, Cunningham II , 824 N.E.2d at 532, and later declined to review Cunningham's postconviction petition, State v. Cunningham , 105 Ohio St.3d 1464, 824 N.E.2d 92 (2005).
In 2006, Cunningham petitioned for habeas relief. He reasserted that his constitutional rights were violated by Mikesell's knowledge of extrajudicial information about Cunningham. R. 19-2 (Habeas Pet. at 7) (Page ID #243). The district court allowed Cunningham to depose the jurors, Mikesell's colleagues at Allen County Children Services, and Jackson's investigator. R. 79 (4/18/08 Mot. at 2–3) (Page ID #1501–02); R. 86 (6/9/08 Order at 10–12) (Page ID #1861–63).
Cunningham acquired affidavits from Freeman and Wobler. R. 104-1 (Freeman Aff. at 1) (Page ID #1955); R. 103-1 (Wobler Aff. at 1) (Page ID #1952). Freeman averred that during guilt-phase deliberations, Mikesell told the other jurors that she worked at the county's children-services agency. R. 104-1 (Freeman Aff. at 1) (Page ID #1955). When Freeman expressed that the ballistic evidence pointed to Jackson's—not Cunningham's—gun, Mikesell apparently responded: Id. at 1–2 (Page ID #1955–56). Freeman "interpreted Mikesell's comments as pressure to vote guilty." Id. at 2 (Page ID #1956). Wobler attested that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilmore v. Sprader
... ... Woods v. Etherton , 578 U.S. 113, 117 (2016) ( per ... curiam ); see also Cunningham v. Shoop , 23 F.4th ... 636, 671(6th Cir. 2022) (stating that, when assessing a state ... court's decision on a petitioner's ... ...
-
In re Sittenfeld
...1995) (affirming the trial court's authority to determine post-trial remedies for demonstrated juror misconduct); Cunningham v. Shoop , 23 F.4th 636, 652 (6th Cir. 2022) ("The greater the probability of juror bias, moreover, the more searching the court's investigation must be"). A more mea......
-
United States v. Bailey
...voir dire"). Additionally, our decision in Cunningham v. Shoop doesn't require the district court to hold a Remmer hearing on this claim. 23 F.4th 636 (6th Cir. 2022). In Cunningham, a state habeas prisoner sought a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) for a juror-bias claim after diligentl......
-
Bradley v. Campbell
... ... judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Harris ... v. Reed , 489 U.S. 255, 262-65 (1989); Cunningham v ... Shoop , 23 F.4th 636, 673 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing ... Harris ) ... Addressing ... Petitioner's ... ...
-
A Brief History and Status of (Cleaned Up) in the Sixth Circuit
...judges who use it sparingly. For example, we found only one opinion in which Judge Moore used the parenthetical. See Cunningham v. Shoop, 23 F.4th 636, 651(6th Cir. 2022). And Judge Gilman and Judge Rogers have each only used the parenthetical in one unpublished opinion for the Court. See H......