CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
VIRGINIA S. CAUDILL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JANET CONOVER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 14-5418
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:10-cv-00084—Danny C. Reeves, District Judge.
Argued: November 29, 2017
Decided and Filed: February 2, 2018
Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Virginia Caudill and Jonathon Goforth broke into Lonetta White’s home and beat her to death with a hammer when she refused to give them money to buy drugs. After ransacking her home for valuables, they wrapped her body in a carpet and loaded it in the trunk of her own car. They drove the car to an empty field, doused it with gasoline, and set it on fire. An autopsy revealed that she died from massive head injuries, including blows that caved in parts of her skull.

A Kentucky jury convicted Caudill and Goforth in a joint trial of murder, robbery, burglary, arson, and tampering with evidence. After a mitigation hearing, the same jury sentenced them to die for their crimes. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Caudill’s convictions and sentence and rejected her requests for collateral relief. Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. 2003); Caudill v. Commonwealth, No. 2006-SC-000457, 2009 WL 1110398 (Ky. Apr. 23, 2009). Caudill filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the district court denied. Caudill v. Conover, No. 5:10-84, 2014 WL 349300 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 31, 2014).

We granted a certificate of appealability to consider two questions: (1) whether the state courts reasonably rejected her Batson claim, and (2) whether her lawyers provided ineffective assistance by choosing not to call additional witnesses during the penalty phase. Neither claim has merit, and accordingly we must affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DANNY HILL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CARL ANDERSON, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   Nos. 99-4317/14-3718
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 4:96-cv-00795—Paul R. Matia and John R. Adams, District Judges.
Argued: November 30, 2016
Decided and Filed: February 2, 2018
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this death penalty case out of Ohio, Danny Hill asserts in his habeas petition that he may not be executed because he is “intellectually disabled,” as now defined in three Supreme Court cases decided in the past fifteen years. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), was decided and made retroactive after Hill was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, so although Hill raised his intellectual disability as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase of his trial, he was not afforded the constitutional protections set forth in Atkins during his original trial. Our court issued a remand order in 2002 directing the State of Ohio to assess Hill’s intellectual functioning in light of Atkins. Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679 (6th Cir. 2002). The issue now before us is whether that assessment comports with Atkins and the Supreme Court’s later opinions on the subject. We conclude that the courts in Ohio have unreasonably applied the Supreme Court’s three-part standard in this case.