Michael Griffin v. Gary Galloway, Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Summary

This Report and Recommendations addresses Michael Griffin’s federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Ohio convictions for breaking and entering, safecracking, grand theft, and theft. The recommendations conclude that the first ground is procedurally defaulted and meritless, while the insufficient-evidence and Fifth Amendment claims should be dismissed on the merits under the deferential standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Holdings

1. The first habeas ground should be dismissed as procedurally defaulted because Griffin's counsel did not make a contemporaneous objection, the state appellate court enforced the default by reviewing only for plain error, Ohio's contemporaneous-objection rule is an adequate and independent state ground, and Griffin showed neither cause nor prejudice.
2. Even apart from procedural default, the challenge to admission of evidence concerning the pending Hamilton County offense lacked merit because the evidence was admitted for the nonpropensity purpose of proving identity through modus operandi and did not violate clearly established federal law.
3. The second habeas ground should be dismissed because the state appellate court reasonably determined that a rational factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Griffin was the perpetrator.
4. The third habeas ground should be dismissed because the Fifth Amendment does not give a defendant the right to testify selectively while preventing proper cross-examination about the matters placed in issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Griffin's federal habeas claim challenging the admission of other-acts evidence concerning a pending Hamilton County charge was procedurally defaulted because trial counsel failed to contemporaneously object.
2. Whether the state appellate court's determination that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to establish Griffin's identity was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia and AEDPA.
3. Whether Griffin's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination entitled him to testify in his own defense while restricting cross-examination concerning the Hamilton County offense.

Disposition

other