Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Charles Maxwell - Ohio Death Row

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    Charles Maxwell - Ohio Death Row




    Summary of Offense:

    On November 27, 2005, Maxwell murdered his former girlfriend 36-year-old Nichole McCorkle in Cleveland. Four days before the murder Nichole had testified to the grand jury that Maxwell had beat her resulting in hospitalization. Initially, Maxwell argued with and shot at Nichole’s sister, who was trying to protect Nichole, but she was able to escape unharmed. In retaliation for the testimony, Maxwell then shot Nichole twice as their three-year-old daughter watched.

  2. #2
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday. Watch live stream here

    Oral Argument Preview

    State of Ohio v. Charles Maxwell, Case no. 2007-0755
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

    In this case, Charles Maxwell of Cleveland appeals his conviction and death sentence for the November 2005 aggravated murder of his former domestic partner, Nichole McCorkle.

    Following a jury trial, Maxwell was found guilty of going to McCorkle’s home with a gun and fatally shooting her “with prior calculation and design.” The jury found Maxwell guilty of the death penalty specification that he killed McCorkle in retaliation for her testimony before a grand jury a few days earlier regarding a previous incident in which she had been hospitalized after being beaten by Maxwell.

    Attorneys for Maxwell have advanced 19 allegations of legal and procedural error during his trial that they assert are grounds for the Supreme Court to vacate his conviction or reduce his death sentence to a term of life imprisonment. Among those assignments of error:

    Maxwell’s appellate attorneys argue that his trial counsel did not provide him with effective representation during the penalty phase of the trial because they failed to present to the jury as mitigation evidence intelligence test results from a pretrial competency hearing in which the court’s expert had categorized Maxwell as “borderline mentally retarded” – information that they say should have been strongly emphasized to the jury as a compelling reason not to impose a death sentence. They argue further that trial counsel then compounded this error by having their own psychologist testify about the results of follow-up intelligence tests that she had conducted, because those tests reflected a higher IQ for Maxwell that was a predictable result of giving any subject a second battery of intelligence tests within a few months after previous testing.

    Defense counsel assert that the state’s trial evidence was not sufficient to establish either that Maxwell had gone to McCorkle’s house with a prior intent to kill her, or that the motive for the killing was retaliation for her grand jury testimony against him. They argue that the testimony at trial showed that Maxwell had followed McCorkle earlier that evening when she went on a date with another man, had entered her home to confront her based on jealousy after watching her kiss the other man goodnight, and had shot her in a fit of rage after the two had an extended argument, Maxwell answered several phone calls to McCorkle’s phone from the other man, and McCorkle’s sister arrived at the scene, confronted Maxwell, and ordered him to leave the house.

    Maxwell also argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by allowing defense attorneys to use all of their peremptory challenges during voir dire to remove women from the jury pool. While prior U. S. Supreme Court decisions have held that the state may not use its peremptory challenges to disproportionately exclude minorities or other protected groups from a jury, Maxwell asserts that the same constitutional issue (a biased or non-representative jury panel) is created regardless of which party uses its challenges improperly.

    In response to those claims, attorneys from the Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office argue that:

    Maxwell’s trial attorneys made a strategic decision to base their penalty phase argument against a death sentence primarily on testimony by family members and neighbors that Maxwell was a good person who worked hard, helped others and was a contributing member of the community rather than focusing on an alleged lack of mental capacity. The state points out that the court psychologist whose testing showed Maxwell’s IQ score in the “borderline” range also indicated in his report a belief that Maxwell may have been “malingering” (deliberately giving wrong answers or pretending not to understand information) in order to escape the consequences of his crime, and prosecutors would have emphasized those suspicions in cross-examining him. They argue that case law bars courts reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel from “second-guessing” a defense attorney’s trial strategy after the fact where the record shows that he or she made a reasoned choice to pursue one strategy or line of argument over other possible strategies.

    In response to Maxwell’s claim that he did not act with prior calculation but shot McCorkle in a fit of jealous rage, the state points to trial testimony by John Gregg, a friend of Maxwell’s, who testified that after learning that McCorkle had testified truthfully to a grand jury about his prior assault on her, Maxwell told Gregg “the b----h is going to make me kill her.” Gregg also testified that Maxwell asked him if he knew where Maxwell could get a gun, and that after hearing that McCorkle had been murdered four days later, Gregg had called Maxwell and confirmed that he had followed through on his threat. Prosecutors also argue that Maxwell’s claim that he acted spontaneously was belied by evidence that after following the victim and her date for four hours on the night of the crime, Maxwell then waited for the other man to leave and parked his car several blocks from McCorkle’s house before taking the gun he had obtained into the victim’s home and shooting her twice in the head at point blank range.

    With regard to defense counsel’s alleged use of peremptory challenges to systematically exclude women from the jury, the state argues that even if the trial court erred by not questioning whether some of the challenges were discriminatory, that mistake would constitute “invited error” that Maxwell may not invoke to challenge his conviction or sentence because it is a defect that he himself introduced into the trial proceedings.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  3. #3
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Ohio Supreme Court upholds Cleveland man's death sentence

    The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence of a Cleveland man convicted of killing his girlfriend.

    Charles Maxwell shot Nichole McCorkle to death in 2005. He had appealed his death sentence in part by challenging the autopsy report and testimony from a medical examiner.

    Maxwell shot McCorkle to death after she had testified to the grand jury that he earlier had pistol-whipped her.

    The medical examiner who prepared the autopsy left the office before Maxwell’s trial, and another examiner stepped in to testify in court. Maxwell had argued that he had a constitutional right to confront in court the original examiner who prepared the report.

    The state high court also threw out 18 other arguments he made to try to overturn the death penalty in his case.

    http://www.wksu.org/news/story/38626
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    In today's Ohio Supreme Court's motions and procedural rulings, the court GRANTED Maxwell's motion for a stay of execution.

    2007-0755. State v. Maxwell.
    Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR475400 This cause came for further consideration upon appellant's filing of motion for a stay of execution of death sentence pending disposition of available state remedies.

    Upon consideration of appelllant's motion for a stay of execution of death sentence pending disposition of available state remedies, it is so ordered by the court that the motion is granted.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #5
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    In today's orders, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Maxwell's petition for certiorari.

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Ohio
    Case Nos.: (2007-0755)
    Decision Date: March 20, 2014
    Rehearing Denied: June 11, 2014
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  6. #6
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,318
    On February 8, 2021, Maxwell filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court.

    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oh...cv00318/274506
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

  7. #7
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,318
    Distributed for conference April 1, 2021.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-6970.html
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

  8. #8
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,318
    Petition for certiorari denied.

    Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County
    Case Numbers: (107758)
    Decision Date: May 21, 2020
    Discretionary Court Decision Date: October 27, 2020

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-6970.html
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •