holding that the decision to not request a jury instruction that would have been inconsistent with defense counsel’s theory of the case “fell within the purview of trial tactics and did not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the decision to not request a jury instruction that would have been inconsistent with defense counsel’s theory of the case “fell within the purview of trial tactics and did not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel.”
- addressing multiple challenges to the indictment in a capital murder case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’Connor, C.J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 205} I join the dissenting opinion of Justice O’Neill to the extent that he would find structural error and remand this case to the trial court for a new suppression hearing that is either public or is closed after making the findings required by Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). I do not join the dissenting opinion, however, to the extent that it states that capital punishment is unconstitutional.