MICHAEL MADISON, ) Court of Common Pleas Case No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed January 09, 2018 - Case No. 2016-1006 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ) STATE OF OHIO, ) CASE NO. 2016-1006 ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County vs. ) Court of Common Pleas, Cleveland, ) Ohio ) MICHAEL MADISON, ) Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR- ) 13-579539-A Defendant-Appellant, ) ) MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLANT MICHAEL MADISON (Volume I: Brief Only, Without Appendix) (This is a Death Penalty CaseAn Execution Date Has Not Been Set) Timothy F. Sweeney (0040027) COUNSEL OF RECORD LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY FARRELL SWEENEY The 820 Building, Suite 430 820 West Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1800 216-241-5003 216-241-3138 (fax) Michael O’Malley Email: [email protected] Cuyahoga County Prosecutor John B. Gibbons (0027294) Christopher Schroeder Attorney at Law Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 55 Public Square Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office Suite 2100 1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 216-363-6086 (216) 443-7800 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Appellee State of Ohio Counsel for Appellant Michael Madison TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... xi STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .................................................................................................... 8 Evidence Presented in the Guilt Phase............................................................................................ 8 A. Introductory Facts. .............................................................................................................. 8 B. The Discovery of the First Body on July 19, 2013: Shirellda Terry................................... 8 C. Madison’s Apprehension by Police on July 19, 2013. ...................................................... 10 D. ECPD’s First Interview with Madison on July 19, 2013. ................................................. 11 E. The Discovery of the Second and Third Bodies on July 20, 2013: Shetisha Sheeley and Angela Deskins. ................................................................................................................ 13 F. Subsequent Police Interviews with Madison, on July 20-22, 2013, Helped Explain Some of What May Have Happened. .......................................................................................... 14 G. Evidence at Trial Concerning Alleged Statements Madison Made About Women. ........ 20 H. Additional Trial Evidence as to the Death of Each Victim. ............................................. 22 1. Shetisha Sheeley ........................................................................................................... 22 2. Angela Deskins ............................................................................................................. 24 3. Shirellda Terry .............................................................................................................. 26 Evidence Presented in the Sentencing Phase ................................................................................ 30 A. The facts of Madison’s background and social history. ................................................... 30 B. Madison’s toxic family history spanned generations. ....................................................... 36 C. In his developmental years, Madison confronted numerous “adverse factors,” and had none of the “protective factors.” ....................................................................................... 39 1. Adverse Development Factors. ..................................................................................... 42 a. Transgenerational Category ...................................................................................... 43 b. Neurodevelopmental Category. ................................................................................ 45 i c. Family and Parenting Category ................................................................................ 49 d. Community Category ................................................................................................ 50 e. Disturbed Trajectory Category ................................................................................. 52 2. Protective Factors.......................................................................................................... 52 D. The catastrophic accumulation of adverse factors that Madison faced in his developing years, and the absence of protective factors, placed him at substantially greater risk of engaging in criminally violent and anti-social behavior than those not similarly disadvantaged. ................................................................................................................... 53 E. By the time of the events in question, Madison was a profoundly damaged human being, largely due to the family and other circumstances in which his development occurred and over which he had no choice or control. ........................................................................... 55 F. Despite being a profoundly damaged person, Madison presented a very low risk of committing violence in prison. ......................................................................................... 59 LEGAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 60 Proposition of Law No. 1. The trial court commits prejudicial error in a capital case when it fails to ensure the defendant receives the adequate voir dire necessary to empanel a fair and impartial jury, free from bias and preconceived opinions about the death penalty, and comprised of jurors capable of imposing a life sentence upon conviction in accordance with the facts and the law, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Sections 5, 9, 10, and 16 of the Ohio Constitution. .......................... 60 A. General legal principles requiring an adequate voir dire. ................................................. 62 B. The trial court failed to afford Madison a constitutionally adequate voir dire. ................ 68 1. The trial court failed to permit sufficiently probative questioning on relevant matters likely to reveal bias in favor of death and/or an unwillingness to consider mitigation factors. ........................................................................................................................... 68 2. The trial court placed undue and unconstitutional reliance on “follow the law” questions, including to retain prospective jurors who had already revealed disqualifying biases in favor of death. .......................................................................... 74 3. The trial court barred and/or unreasonably restricted Madison’s counsel from examining prospective jurors about their understanding of, and willingness to accept, the rights and responsibilities they would have as jurors if the case proceeds to a sentencing phase. .......................................................................................................... 76 4. The trial court failed to define essential terms. ............................................................. 85 ii C. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................................... 86 Proposition of Law No. 2. The trial court in a capital case commits prejudicial error and denies the accused due process, a fair trial, a reliable sentencing proceeding, and an impartial jury, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Sections 5, 9, 10, and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, when it overrules his challenges for cause against nine prospective jurors who were unfairly biased in favor of the death penalty and/or were otherwise unqualified to serve, thereby forcing him to expend all of his peremptory challenges against six of those biased jurors and enabling three of them to sit on the jury that sentenced him to death. ............................................................................................ 87 A. General Legal Principles Applicable to this Proposition. ................................................. 87 B. Facts Relevant to Madison’s Claim that Biased Jurors Were Seated. .............................. 89 1. Juror No. 5. ................................................................................................................... 89 2. Juror No. 11. ................................................................................................................. 96 3. Juror No. 12. ................................................................................................................. 98 4. Juror No. 29. ............................................................................................................... 105 5. Juror No. 31. ............................................................................................................... 108 6. Juror No. 34. ............................................................................................................... 111 7. Juror No. 37. ..............................................................................................................