Baer v. Neal

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his death sentence on murder convictions, where defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to: (1) improper jury instructions during penalty phase of trial that arguably informed jury that they could not consider defendant’s alleged involuntary intoxication as mitigating evidence; and (2) statements made by prosecutor that misrepresented law regarding insanity defense and guilty but mentally ill verdict, made false claim that no Indiana case authorized death penalty following guilty but mentally ill verdict, and made improper reference to victim impact statements. Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing due to above trial counsel’s errors, since jury’s instructions, when considered as whole, prevented jury from considering defendant’s key mitigation claim that his alleged methamphetamine use on day of murders played role in his mental illness. Moreover, trial counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor’s improper conflation of standards of insanity defense and guilty but mentally ill finding only confused jury, and prosecutor’s comment that victim’s family wanted jury to impose death sentence for purposes of “justice” was impermissible under Payne, 501 US 808.