Death Row Inmate Argues Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failure to Present Expert Testimony on Neurological Defects

Above: James Hanna (link)

On February 11, 2021, the Sixth Circuit denied death row inmate James Hanna’s habeas corpus petition, which had alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to present mitigating evidence of mental illness and brain damage.

Hanna, an inmate at Lebanon Correctional Institute, was convicted of aggravated murder for killing his cellmate and sentenced to death in 1998. After exhausting direct-appeal and state postconviction remedies, he filed a federal habeas corpus petition in 2009.

His 2009 petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to present expert testimony as to how his neurological defects and experience of prison culture had contributed to his offense by molding his psychological and emotional makeup over the 30 years he was incarcerated.

The court dismissed this motion with prejudice, finding that it was unlikely that such expert testimony would have changed the outcome of his trial and that the remaining arguments were without merit.

Hanna filed a second federal habeas petition in 2019, again arguing that his counsel had failed to present mitigating evidence of his neurological deficits. In addition to the evidence raised in his 2009 petition, he argued that counsel should have presented neuroimaging evidence and evidence of his complex trauma, severe PTSD reuslting from prior sexual abuse, and brain damage.

The Sixth Circuit disagreed. One judge dissented, finding that evidence of mental illness and neuroimaging to show organic defects had not been adjudicated in his previous petition.

However, the majority found that Hanna had failed to raise new evidence and accordingly dismissed his petition as successive.

Citation: In re Hanna, 987 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2021).

Key words: Ohio, death penalty, neuroimaging, brain damage, PTSD, habeas corpus

This post is the 101st post as part of an ongoing Center for Law, Brain & Behavior (CLBB) series tracking the latest developments in law and neuroscience cases. To see previous posts about recent cases, see the full case archive on the CLBB website. To see updates on legal scholarship, see the Neurolaw News, hosted by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. This project is made possible through support of the Dana Foundation.

--

--

--

at Mass General Hospital, Harvard Medical School

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Unauthorised modification of data with intent to cause impairment is an offence under section 308D…

Designed for failure

Justice from the air —

Last Exit From Autocracy

A road that leads off a cliff. A stop sign is right at the edge of the cliff, and the sky is gray and cloudy.

“Not for Human Consumption”

Developmental Neuroscience and Justice: Can a 19-year-old be Sentenced to Life without Parole?

The Time is Right for Second Chances

Mixed Results for Arguments in State Courts to Extend Juvenile Protections Past the Age of 18

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Center for Law, Brain & Behavior

Center for Law, Brain & Behavior

at Mass General Hospital, Harvard Medical School

More from Medium

In Times Which Seem Like Self-Psychotherapy He Says To Himself: Oh, Vienna

Lucid New Year’s Dream

Shadow Work Prompt 43

The Truth About Temptation

A row of three brightly frosted donuts, covered in sprinkles. The middle one is missing a bite.