CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JERONIQUE D. CUNNINGHAM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TIM SHOOP, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee. |
Nos. 11-3005/20-3429 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:06-cv-00167—Patricia A. Gaughan, District Judge.
Argued: May 12, 2021
Decided and Filed: January 10, 2022
Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Jeronique Cunningham and his half-brother
Cleveland Jackson robbed and shot several friends and their family members. A three-year-old
girl, Jala Grant, and a seventeen-year-old woman, Leneshia Williams, were killed; six others
were injured. Cunningham was indicted and tried on two aggravated-murder counts, an
aggravated-robbery count, and six attempted-aggravated-murder counts. The aggravated-murder
charges carried death-penalty and firearms specifications. Cunningham and Jackson were tried
separately. The jury found Cunningham guilty on all counts and specifications and sentenced
him to death. See State v. Cunningham (Cunningham II), 824 N.E.2d 504, 510–13 (Ohio 2004).
We consider eight issues in this habeas case. The first and second issues are juror-bias
claims involving Cunningham’s jury foreperson Nichole Mikesell. Cunningham argues that
Mikesell’s colleagues at the county’s children-services agency improperly relayed external
information about Cunningham to her. He also argues that Mikesell’s relationship with the
victims’ families affected the jury’s impartiality. He seeks a hearing to investigate jury bias on
both fronts. Third, we consider whether Cunningham’s counsel ineffectively failed to investigate
and present mitigating evidence. Fourth, we review whether Cunningham’s trial counsel
ineffectively failed to investigate, obtain, and present expert testimony about ballistics. Fifth, we
evaluate whether the trial court improperly restricted Cunningham’s ability to question
prospective jurors during voir dire. Sixth, we decide whether the trial court failed to instruct the
jury that it must determine Cunningham’s personal culpability before imposing a death sentence.
Seventh, we determine whether the prosecution improperly failed to turn over witness statements
to the defense. Finally, we consider whether the prosecution made improper closing arguments
during the guilt and sentencing phases. CA6 No. 11-3005 R. 50 (7/27/11 Order at 2); R. 71
(10/13/11 Order at 1); R. 187 (7/28/20 Order at 3).
We cannot grant Cunningham relief for issues three through eight. But we conclude that
Cunningham is entitled to proceed on his juror-bias claims. We therefore REVERSE and
REMAND so that the district court can conduct an evidentiary hearing to investigate juror bias. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
ALI EL-KHALIL, DPM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., dba Beaumont
Hospital – Taylor,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 21-2669 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:19-cv-12822—Laurie J. Michelson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: January 10, 2022
Before: COLE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Decision or discovery? This case is about which of those
events triggers the statute of limitations for a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act (FCA),
31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The district court, in keeping with the statutory text and the traditional
rule, concluded that Dr. Ali El-Khalil’s claim was time barred because the limitations period
commenced when Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. decided not to renew El-Khalil’s medical-staff
privileges, rather than when it notified El-Khalil of that decision five days later. We agree and
AFFIRM. |
|