Habeas corpus; 28 USC § 2254; The Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); Ineffective assistance of trial counsel; Strickland v Washington; Failure to counter the government's expert forensic witness with an expert for the defense; Sentencing; Apprendi v New Jersey; Blakely v Washington

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of petitioner-Hale’s request for habeas relief. It held that the state court did not err by ruling that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to counter the government’s expert forensic witness with a defense expert where even the expert Hale presented in these proceedings did not “refute the state's forensic evidence.” He also was not entitled to relief as to his claim that “he received heightened noncapital sentences based on facts not submitted to a jury, in violation of” Apprendi and Blakely. Hale was convicted of murder and noncapital crimes. The state appellate courts affirmed his convictions. In his habeas petition, he first argued that his trial counsel was ineffective by not countering the government’s expert witness with an expert for the defense. After holding that this claim had not been defaulted, the court explained that if Hale’s counsel “explored the option of calling a forensic expert, then consciously chose another trial strategy that later failed, such a decision would be difficult to fault without falling into the trap of hindsight bias. . . . The trial record shows that, in fact, this is exactly what Hale’s counsel did.” There was evidence that Hale’s counsel chose “to avoid engaging the state in a battle of forensic experts, and instead weave a sympathetic narrative, based on elements of Hale’s character and behavior, that supported his theory of what occurred.” The court concluded “‘it was “well within the bounds of a reasonable judicial determination for the state court to conclude that defense counsel could follow a strategy that did not require the use of experts.”’” As to Hale’s sentencing claims, the court agreed that, a year after Blakely, he “received a heightened sentence for his noncapital charges based on facts that a jury never determined.” The Ohio Supreme Court “found that no plain error existed” and thus, the violation did not warrant overturning his sentence. The court noted that it would “not disturb the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision unless it unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in conducting its harmless-error review.” Given that it held “that the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling reasonably adhered to United States Supreme Court precedent, AEDPA” mandated that it “also deny Hale’s second claim for habeas relief.”