Raglin v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 29 September 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:00cv767
• Parties: Walter Raglin, Petitioner, v. Betty Mitchell, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

Walter Raglin, Petitioner, v. Betty Mitchell, Respondent.

Case No. 1:00cv767

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Dated: September 29, 2013

Judge Michael R. Barrett

ORDER & OPINION

This matter is before the Court upon a number of Report and Recommendations ("R&Rs") and a Decision of the Magistrate Judge. These documents can be grouped in three categories.

The first category contains those documents related to the Magistrate Judge's R&R regarding Petitioner's First Amended Petition. (Doc. 89). Petitioner filed objections to that R&R (Doc. 95), and Respondent filed a Response to the Objections (Doc. 98). The Magistrate Judge then entered an Amended Supplemental R&R. (Doc. 100). Petitioner filed objections to the Amended Supplemental R&R, and Respondent filed a Response to the Objections (Doc. 102). Later, Petitioner was permitted to file Supplemental Objections (Doc. 142), to which Respondent filed a Response (Doc. 145).

The second category contains documents related to the Magistrate Judge's R&R regarding Petitioner's Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 169). Petitioner filed Objections. (Doc. 170). The Magistrate Judge then filed a Supplemental R&R. (Doc. 176). Petitioner filed Objections to the Supplemental R&R (Doc. 182), to which theRespondent filed a Response (Doc. 186).

The third category contains documents related to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order granting Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Petition. (Doc. 177). This Order allows Petitioner to add new claims to his Petition in which Petitioner argues that his execution under Ohio's lethal injection protocol will violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. Respondent filed Corrected Objections. (Doc. 180). Petitioner filed a Response. (Doc. 185). The Warden then filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Doc. 195). This Court recommitted the matter to the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 187), who then issued a Supplemental Opinion and Recommendations (Doc. 188). The Warden filed Objections to the Supplemental Opinion and Recommendations (Doc. 191), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Doc. 192).

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Walter Raglin was convicted in Hamilton County, Ohio, and sentenced to death for the murder and robbery of Michael Bany. A more detailed description of the factual background of this case has been covered elsewhere and for the sake of brevity will not be repeated here.

Following the conclusion of his direct appeals and exhaustion of his state avenues for post-conviction relief, Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

If a party files timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). With regard to orders on non-dispositive matters, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that a district judge shall consider a party's objections to a magistrate's order and "shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." The "clearly erroneous" standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual findings and the "contrary to law" standard applies to the legal conclusions. Sheppard v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr., Inst., 1:12-CV-198, 2013 WL 146364, *5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2013). Legal conclusions should be modified or set aside if they "contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent." Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA") governs the standards or review for state court decisions. Petitioner filed his Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 14) on September 13, 2000, and therefore it is subject to the Act's provisions. The AEDPA provides that federal courts cannot grant a habeas petition for any claim that the state court adjudicated on the merits unless the adjudication: "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based uponan unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. §2254(d); see also Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 614 (6th Cir. 2001).

B. First Amended Petition

In his First Amended Petition, Petitioner raises thirty-eight grounds for relief. In his R&R (Doc. 89) and Amended Supplemental R&R (Doc. 100), the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing all grounds for relief in Petitioner's First Amended Petition.¹

Petitioner does not object to the Magistrate Judge's R&R as to Grounds Three, Five, Seven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Nine, and Thirty-Four. Therefore, the Court will not discuss those grounds in detail here. The Grounds which are at issue are as follows:

First Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the pretrial and trial phases of his capital trial in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

. . .

B. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct voir dire in a manner sufficient to choose a fair and impartial jury

. . .

4. Failure to adequately voir dire and remove Juror VeesartC. Trial counsel was ineffective for repeatedly conceding Mr. Raglin's guilt and then after such concession presenting conflicting arguments to the jury

1. Trial counsel's concession of Mr. Raglin's guilt

2. Conflicting arguments presented to the jury

D. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately present a defense, including failing to support counsel's request for a manslaughter instruction with evidence sufficient to warrant the instruction, failing to secure the assistance of experts, and failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct.

1. Failure to put on evidence in support of manslaughter instruction

2. Failure to secure the assistance of experts

a. Firearms expert

. . .

3. Failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct

Second Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the mitigation phase of his capital trial in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

. . .

D. Trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present significant evidence of remorse.

Third Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Fourth Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel on his direct appeals in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Sixth Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin's rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when the trial court failed to suppress his statement made to members of the Cincinnati Police Department on January 3, 1996, because his statement was made during a custodial interrogation following an unfulfilled request for counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981); Minnick v. Mississippi, 489 U.S. 146 (1990).

Eighth Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin's Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when the judge refused to instruct the jury at the end of the trial phase that it could find Mr. Raglin guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense of aggravated murder.

Ninth Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin's Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the judge erroneously instructed the jury at the end of the trial phase on the issues of causation, forseeability [sic], intent, and purpose.

Seventeenth Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin's Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the judge instructed the jury at the end of the mitigation phase in such a manner that the jury could conclude that it had to consider and reject a recommendation as to the imposition of death before it could consider either life sentence option.

Twenty-Third Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin was denied his constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial under the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments as a result of prosecutorial misconduct during both phases of his capital proceedings.

Thirtieth Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin was denied his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments during the mitigation phase because the trial court permitted the prosecutor to introduceinadmissable rebuttal evidence that was unfairly prejudicial to Mr. Raglin's rights to a fair trial and impartial jury.

Thirty-Second Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin's rights as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the trial court committed multiple errors during the pretrial, trial and mitigation phases of his capital case.

Thirty-Sixth Ground for Relief:

Walter Raglin's conviction and death sentence are invalid under the federal constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, the effective assistance of counsel, and a reliable sentence due to the cumulative errors in the admission of evidence and instructions, and gross misconduct of state officials in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Thirty-Seventh Ground for Relief:

Brady Claim

Thirty-Eighth Ground for Relief:

Giglio Claim

For the...