The Akron Legal News

6th Circuit denies habeas relief for Ohio death-row prisoner

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 21, 2012

A federal appeals court recently rejected a man’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus after finding that an eyewitness and several pieces of evidence did connect him to the killing of his girlfriend and four of her family members.

In the opinion, a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals panel stated that Samuel Moreland, an Ohio death-row prisoner, was not eligible for a writ of habeas corpus because sufficient evidence supported his conviction of aggravated murder with prior calculation and design.

“Multiple pieces of evidence, including eyewitness testimony, Moreland’s admission that he shot a gun near the time of the murders, the drops of blood found on Moreland’s clothes that matched the blood types of two of the victims, and evidence showing that Moreland argued with Glenna (Green) immediately before the murders, support his identity as the killer,” 6th Circuit Judge John Rogers wrote for the court.

Case summary details that Moreland was living with his girlfriend Glenna Green as well as Green’s daughter and grandchildren in November 1985.

On Nov. 1, 1985, Green’s second daughter and her children were staying in the house. One of the daughters, her boyfriend, and one of the grandsons left the house around 10:30 p.m. Moreland then began arguing with Green because she would not give him money for alcohol, according to case summary.

He left the argument three times and when he returned for the final time he allegedly shot Green twice in the head, and then shot her grandson. When the three family members returned, they found Moreland was not in the house and Green, her adult daughter, and three of her grandchildren were dead. Three more of the grandchildren were injured but survived.

Moreland met with Samuel Thomas and the two drank alcohol at Thomas’ house, case summary states. After Thomas drove Moreland home, he was arrested and told the arresting officers that they were “too late.”

When the officers tested Moreland’s hands for gunshot residue, he stated that it would not be helpful because he had been at a shooting range that day. They asked if he had signed into the range and he changed his statement, saying that he had been shooting along a river bank.

At trial, expert testimony estimated that Moreland’s blood alcohol level at the time of the shootings would have been between .30 and .36, rendering him too intoxicated to execute the shootings. Thomas, however, questioned the intoxication defense and others who saw Moreland that night stated that he did not struggle to walk or talk.

In April 1986, a three-judge panel found Moreland guilty of the aggravated murder of five people and attempted aggravated murder of three others. The panel sentenced him to death and the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that ruling. The Ohio Court of Appeals found Moreland had waived his right to a trial by jury knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.

Moreland then filed for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his convictions for aggravated murder with prior calculation and design were not supported by sufficient evidence and that eyewitness testimony was not properly handled. The U.S. District Court - Southern District of Ohio denied the relief and Moreland appealed to the 6th Circuit.

“The Supreme Court of Ohio reasonably applied clearly established federal law in deciding that sufficient evidence supported Moreland’s convictions for committing aggravated murder with prior calculation and design,” Rogers stated.

The three-judge appellate panel determined that one of the grandchildren who was shot and survived had identified Moreland as the attacker. The child also stated that Moreland left the argument multiple times, giving him time away from the argument to cool down.

The panel maintained that Moreland’s leaving supported the conviction of prior calculation and design. It held that gunshot residue, eyewitness testimony from the child, his argument with Green and blood spots found on his clothes, supported Moreland’s conviction for the aggravated murders.

“Because the Supreme Court of Ohio did not unreasonably apply, or rule contrary to, Supreme Court law, the district court properly denied habeas relief on this claim,” Rogers continued.

The judges considered that the child was 11 years old at the time of the trial, old enough to be considered competent. They also determined that the trial judge evaluated the child in his chambers with all parties present and determined the boy to be competent enough to testify.

Finding that it was within the trial court’s discretion to find the boy’s testimony credible, the appellate court rejected Moreland’s contentions against it.

“As for (the boy’s) physical and mental status, the three-judge panel conducted an interview with (him) in chambers to consider his competence (even though he was presumed competent under Ohio law),” Rogers wrote.

“The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Fellow 6th Circuit Judges Richard Griffin and Danny Boggs joined Rogers to form the majority.

Attempts to contact the Office of the Federal Public Defender and the Ohio Attorney General were unsuccessful prior to press deadline.

The case is cited Moreland v. Bradshaw, case No. 09-3528.

[Back]