ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2010-1406 Appellee vs. Appeal taken from Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas MARK PICKENS, Case No. B-0905088 Appellant MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARK PICKENS THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE JOSEPH T. DETERS DANIEL F. BURKE, JR. (0013836) Hamilton County Prosecutor Attorney for Appellant William Howard Taft Law Center 230 East Ninth Street 3rd Floor Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 946-3701 Fax: (513) 946-3707 WILLIAM E. BREYER (002138) ROGER W. KIRK (0024219) Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Appellant 230 East Ninth Street, Suite 4000 114 E. Eighth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 946-3244 (513) 272-1100 Fax: (513) 946-3100 Fax: (513) 271-8888 Table of Contents Page No. Table of Contents . i Table of Authorities . iv Statement of the Facts ..................... ................................1 Proposition of Law No. 1 . 16 The trial court abused its discretion and erred by not providing the defendant with a proper capital murder case voir dire when the court allowed the prosecutor to ask prospective jurors in voir dire about specific mitigating factors of the defendant.. It violates the accused's Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article One §§, 5, 9, 10 and 16 of the State of Ohio Constitution. Proposition of Law No. 2 . 17 An accused in a capital case hasa due process right to a fair voir dire under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article One, §§2, 5, 9, 10 and 16 of the State of Ohio Constitution. Where the trial court overrules the defendant's Batson challenge to the State of Ohio's use of multiple peremptory challenges for excusing minority members of the jury venire, it violates the defendant's due process rights to his prejudice. Proposition of Law No. 3 . 18 The trial court erred to Pickens' prejudice by permitting the State to engage in misconduct by failing to disclose discovery evidence in a timely manner, failing to disclose Brady material evidence in discovery and by allowing the prosecutor to make a prejudicial closing argument to the jury which deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under the United States Constitution and Article One, § §2, 9, and 16 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. Proposition of Law No. 4 . 26 Pickens' convictions and sentences are void and/or voidable since he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and due process guaranteed under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, §§1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 16 and 20 by defense counsel's errors during pre-trial, voir dire, trial phase, and sentencing phase of his capital murder trial. Proposition of Law No. 5 . 31 Pickens' convictions and/or sentences are void or voidable because the death penalty is disproportionately imposed upon defendants who are racial minorities. This disparity exists in Hamilton County and the State of Ohio. The clisparity existed in Hamilton Courity, Ohio, at the time of Mark Pickens' capital murder trial. Proposition of Law No. 6 . 31 The mere fact that a defendant kills a person who had earlier sworn out a complaint against the defendant for an offense is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt for the O.R.C. § 2929.04(A)(8) specification. The evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim because she had sworn out the earlier complaint. Proposition of Law No. 7 . 35 The splicing of the DVDs located at Gateway plaza of defendant leaving and returning to his apartment on May 31, June 1, and June 2 was improper and the evidence should not have been allowed. 36 Proposition of Law No. 8 . Ohio's death penalty law is unconstitutional. O.R.C. §§ 2903.01, 2929.02, 2929.021, 2929.02, 2929.023, 2929.03, 2929.04 and 2929.05 do not meet the prescribed constitutional requirements and are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to Mark Pickens. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, VIII, and XIV; Ohio Const. art. I, §§ 2, 9, 10, and 16. Further, Ohio's death penalty statute violates the United States' obligations under international law. Proposition of Law No. 9 . 49 A conviction based upon insufficient evidence is a deprivation of due process. U.S. Const. Amend. V & XIV; Ohio Const. Art. I, § 10. 50 Proposition of Law No. 10 . Considered together, the cumulative errors set forth in Appellant's brief merit reversal. Conclusion ................................................................. 51 . 52 Certificate of Service . APPENDIX: . State v. Mark Pickens, Notice of Appeal, Case No. B-0905088 . A-1 State v. Mark Pickens, Hamilton County Common Pleas, Judgment Entry, Case No. B-0905088 ................................................................ A-4 State v. Mark Pickens, Hamilton County Common Pleas, Sentencing Opinion, Case No. B-0905088 ................................................................ A-7 Ohio Const.art.I,§1 ....................................................... A-21 Ohio Const.art.I,§2 ....................................................... A-21 Ohio Const.art.i,§5 ....................................................... A-21 Ohio Const.art.I,§9 ....................................................... A-21 Ohio Const.art.I,§ 10 ....................................................... A-22 Ohio Const.art.I,§16 ...................................................... A-23 Ohio Const. art. I § 20 ...................................................... A-23 U.S.Const.amend.V ....................................................... A-24 U.S. Const. amend. VI ...................................................... A-24 U.S. Const. amend. VIII ..................................................... A-25 ii U.S.Const.amend.XIV ..:.................................................. A-26 O.R.C. § 2903.01 ..............:............................................ A-28 O.R.C. § 2929.02 .......................................................... A-29 O.R.C.§2929.021 ......................................................... A-30 O.R.C. § 2929.022 ......................................................... A-31 O.R.C.§2929.023 ......................................................... A-33 O.R.C.§2929.03 ........................................................... A-34 O.R.C. § 2929.04 ........................................................... A-40 O.R.C. § 2929.05 ....................................................,......A-43 O.R.C. § 2947.23 ........................................................... A-44 O.R.C.§2949.22 ...................................:.......................A-46 O.R.C.§ 2953.21 ........................................................... A-47 Evid. R. 404 ............................................................... A-50 Post-Conviction Petition . : . : . A-51 iii Table of Authorities Page No. CASES Asakura v. Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924) . 40 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ............ 17 Beavers v. Balkom, 636 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1981). 29 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) . .. : . 22 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963) . 19 .................................... Clarkv. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 508 (1947) 40 Clinton v. City ofNew York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) . 45, 46 Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592 (1977) . 37 Commonwealth v. O'Neal, 339 N.E.2d 676, 678 (Mass. 1975) . 39 Case no. 2:04cv1156 (S.D. Ohio) : . • • • • • ' ' ` ` .. 344 Cooey v. Strickland, 4 Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 487-488 (1895) . Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2°a Cir. 1980) . 40,47 Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 672 F. Supp. 1531 (N.D. Ca1. 1987) . 40 Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370 (7" Cir. 1985) ........ 46 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 282 (1972) . 37, 39 Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792 (1963) . 26 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) . : . 34 Jackson v. Virginia, 433 U.S. 307 (1979) . 34, 49 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 48 (1907) . 40 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 150 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ........ 19, 20 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) . 46 McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1449 (1970) ............ 26 Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) . : . 27 Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900) . 40, 46 Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 361 (1981) . : . 37 Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) . 37 Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960) . 39 Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) . : . 28, 29 State v. Allen, 73 Ohio St. 3d 626, 630, 653 N.E.2d 675, 682 (1995) . 49 State v. Braxton, 102 Ohio App.3d 28,656 N.E.2d 970 (1995) . 21 State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St. 3d 55; 69 -70, 873 N.E. 2d 858 (2007) . 50 State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) . 35 State v. Depew, 38 Ohio St.3d 275, 288, 528 N.E.2d 542, 556 (1988) . 22 State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.2d 329, 715 N.E.2d 136 (1999) . 22 State v. Freeman (June 9,2000), First District Court of Appeals, Case No. C 99 0213, unreporte-d ................................... .............e.......... 21 State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St. 3d 49, 656 N.E. 2d 623 (1995) . 50 State v. Henderson (1st Dist., June 9, 2000), 2000 Ohio App. Lexis 2451 ........... 20 State v. Hernandez, 63 Ohio St.3d 577, 584 N.E.2d 1310 (1992) . 17 State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1991) . , . : . 34 State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48, 529 N.E.2d 898 (1988) . 19 iv State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 623 (1976) . : . 26 State v. Moore, 40 Ohio St.3d 63 (1988) . : 19 State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007) . 16 State v. Parsons, 6 Ohio St.3d 442, 453 N.E.2d 689 (1983) . 19 State v. Pierre, 572 P.2d 1338 (Utah 1977) . : . 39 State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 470 N.E.2d 883 (1984) . : . 21 State v. Simko, 71 Ohio St.3d 483 (1994) . _ . : . 28 State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 (2009) . : . 28 State v. Tuck, 80 Ohio App.3d 721, 610 N.E.2d 591(1992) .