The Akron Legal News

Murder conviction stands after no evidence of biased juror

ANNE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 5, 2014

The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas was recently affirmed when the 9th District Court of Appeals found that the lower court properly denied a defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Denny Ross, was tried for the murder of Hannah Hill in 1999.

That trial resulted in a mistrial and, after more than a decade of litigation, Ross was retried in 2012.

A jury convicted Ross of murder, felony murder with felonious assault as a predicate offense, tampering with evidence, gross abuse of a corpse and felonious assault.

The trial court ordered Ross to serve 19 years to life in prison.

In September 2013, Ross filed a petition for post-conviction relief along with a motion to conduct discovery.

According to him, after the jury was discharged, his father visited a “Remembering Hannah Hill” website and saw a picture of a woman he believed to be the jury foreperson listed as a “friend” of the site.

Ross claimed that he was entitled to a hearing on his petition and to discovery to determine when the jury foreperson joined the site.

“According to Ross, the fact that the foreperson had identified herself as a friend of the website was evidence that she was not impartial,” wrote Judge Beth Whitmore for the court of appeals.

Ross asked the trial court to vacate his convictions based on a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to be tried by an impartial jury.

The trial court, however, denied the petition without a hearing and Ross appealed from the decision.

“This court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny a postconviction relief petition for an abuse of discretion,” wrote Judge Whitmore. “A trial court properly denies a defendant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing where the petition, the supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence, the files and the record do not demonstrate that petitioner set forth operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief.”

The only evidence that Ross submitted in support of his petition was an affidavit from his father, Allen Ross.

In that affidavit, Allen stated, “I scanned the Internet looking for comments posted regarding my son’s conviction ... While browsing the ‘Remembering Hannah Hill’ website, I saw a picture of a woman I recognized as the foreperson of my son’s jury. The publication identified her as a person who had become a friend of (the site).”

The trial court and appellate panel noted that Ross did not include a copy of the website page with the foreperson’s picture in his petition or any evidence of the site at all.

Additionally, the lower court had noted that the trial was over and the jury had already been discharged when Allen allegedly saw the foreperson online.

“Because Ross’ petition was premised upon ‘a mere hunch’ that misconduct had occurred during the trial, the court concluded that Ross had failed to set forth ‘sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief,’” wrote Judge Whitmore. “Having reviewed the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ross’ petition without a hearing.”

The appellate panel also held that there is no right to discovery in a post-conviction proceeding.

After overruling all of his arguments, the court of appeals affirmed Ross’ conviction and the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.

Judge Carla Moore and Presiding Judge Eve Belfance joined Judge Whitmore to form the majority, with the latter concurring in judgment only.

The case is cited State v. Ross, 2014-Ohio-2038.

[Back]