recognizing Ohio’s contemporaneous-objection rule as an adequate and independent state ground that bars federal habeas review
How later courts described this case
- recognizing Ohio’s contemporaneous-objection rule as an adequate and independent state ground that bars federal habeas review
- '[K]nowing that the prosecution was going to call [the expert] anyway, Awkal's counsel opted to call [the expert] as a witness to take some of the "sting" out of [the expert's] adverse opinion by being able to present his favorable testimony first and by incorporating the negative testimony into Awkal's case-in-chief.'
- “Federal habeas review is generally precluded where a state court decides not to address a petitioner’s federal claims because he has failed to meet a state procedural requirement ‘that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.’”
- “At some point; Ockham’s Razor must apply — the simplest answer is usually the correct one.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion and write separately only to state that I do not agree that the facts leading up to the shooting so undermined Awkal’s insanity defense that there was no realistic hope of the defense succeeding. Nevertheless, as the majority observes, Dr. Rizk’s testimony was inevitable, and there is no reason to conclude that the timing of that testimony or defense counsels’ manner or presentation affected the jury’s verdict.