Sign Up for Vincent AI
Hodge v. Jordan
On Petition for Panel Rehearing
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville. No. 7:13-cv-00005—David L. Bunning, District Judge.
ARGUED: Dennis J. Burke, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, LaGrange, Kentucky, for Appellant. Brett R. Nolan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellee. ON APPELLANT BRIEF AND ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING: Dennis J. Burke, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, LaGrange, Kentucky, Dana C. Hansen
Chavis, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. ON APPELLEE BRIEF: Joseph A. Newberg, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellee. ON RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING: Matthew F. Kuhn, Brett R. Nolan, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellee.
Before: SILER, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.*
SILER, J. (pp. 403-04), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
Benny Lee Hodge, a Kentucky death-row inmate, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Hodge's petition primarily concerns the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel at the sentencing phase. Because the Kentucky Supreme Court applied a standard of prejudice that is contrary to established Supreme Court precedent, counsel's failure to present mitigation evidence was constitutionally deficient, and there is a reasonable probability that counsel's failure affected the outcome of Hodge's sentencing, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to grant conditional habeas relief as to the penalty phase of Hodge's trial. Hodge also raises jury-tampering and jury-bias claims, which we conclude are without merit.1
In August 1985, Hodge and two codefendants posed as FBI agents to enter the home of Dr. Roscoe Acker. Hodge v. Commonwealth, No. 2009-SC-000791-MR, 2011 WL 3805960, at *4 (Ky. Aug. 25, 2011). Once inside, they covered the heads of Dr. Acker and his college-aged daughter, Tammy, and forced Dr. Acker to open his safe. Id. A co-defendant then strangled Dr. Acker with an electrical cord until he lost consciousness, and Hodge stabbed Tammy at least ten times. Id. Hodge and his co-defendants stole about two million dollars from the safe. Id. at *1.
Hodge was charged with and convicted of murder, robbery, and burglary. During the sentencing phase of Hodge's trial, his counsel presented only a two-sentence stipulation, which was read to the jury: Id. at *2. The jury recommended that Hodge be sentenced to death and the trial court imposed a death sentence the same day. Hodge and his codefendant filed a combined direct appeal, which the Supreme Court of Kentucky denied. See Epperson v. Commonwealth, 809 S.W.2d 835 (Ky. 1990).
Over the last three decades, Hodge has pursued several postconviction challenges. In 1992, Hodge filed an unsuccessful state-court motion to vacate his conviction, alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and jury tampering. Hodge, 2011 WL 3805960, at *1. On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court ordered the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing. Hodge v. Commonwealth, 68 S.W.3d 338, 345 (Ky. 2001). The trial court did so and denied relief. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. Hodge, 2011 WL 3805960. Hodge petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was denied. Hodge v. Kentucky, 568 U.S. 1056, 133 S.Ct. 506, 184 L.Ed.2d 514 (2012) (mem.). In 2013, Hodge sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Hodge v. White, No. CV 13-5-DLB-EBA, 2016 WL 4425094 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 17, 2016). The district court denied Hodge's petition, and this appeal followed.
As described by the Kentucky Supreme Court, postconviction counsel provided considerable mitigation evidence that trial counsel failed to present to the jury at the sentencing phase:
Hodge, 2011 WL 3805960, at *3-4. Hodge's history of being abused, as well as his mental-illness diagnosis, went unheard by the jury, who instead heard only the two-sentence stipulation provided by counsel.
To prevail on a habeas claim premised on IAC, Hodge must satisfy the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). He must show both "that [his] lawyers performed well below the norm of competence in the profession and that this failing prejudiced [his] case." Caudill v. Conover, 881 F.3d 454, 460 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052). And because the Kentucky Supreme Court has already rejected Hodge's IAC claim, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) also requires that he demonstrate that the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2554(d)(1). In sum, we must give double deference to the state court's determination. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). A district court's denial of a habeas petition is reviewed de novo. Mitchell v. MacLaren, 933 F.3d 526, 531 (6th Cir. 2019). "The district court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its legal conclusions on mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo." Id.
Counsel had a duty to reasonably investigate and...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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