Login | May 29, 2025
Convictions affirmed in quadruple capital murder case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: November 1, 2017
Prosecutors did not engage in misconduct by asking a Summit County trial judge not to impanel the jury in a quadruple Akron capital murder case.
In addition, the second trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he quashed defendant Deshanon Haywood’s original jury after the first judge recused herself following allegations of bias, the 9th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
According to case summary:
Akron police were called to the basement of a Kimlyn Circle apartment in the early morning hours of April 18, 2013.
They found four people – resident R.R.; K.W., R.R.’s girlfriend; M.N., a female friend of K.W.’s, and K.D., a male friend of R.R.’s – had been killed during a robbery and/or burglary.
R.R. had received a sizeable amount of heroin the night before his murder. Police discovered Haywood was the last person to call R.R. and brought him into questioning.
Another man, Derrick Brantley, was also arrested.
Brantley’s trial was first. A jury found him guilty of all four aggravated murder and aggravated felony murder charges, plus burglary and kidnapping charges.
After Brantley’s jury recommended life without parole, the trial court judge questioned whether the state should continue to pursue the death penalty against Haywood. The judge spoke with the victims’ families about the death penalty and asked several prosecutors in chambers to dismiss the capital specifications. In addition, she called the chief prosecutor and encouraged him to dismiss the death penalty specifications.
The state decided against the judge’s recommendation.
Near the end of voir dire, the state repeatedly tried to strike Juror No. 18, an African-American juror who was opposed to the death penalty. The juror remained on the panel after the judge reasoned Haywood was “entitled to one juror at least that looks like him.”
The state objected again to Juror No. 18 after three other African-American jurors were seated, but Juror No. 18 remained on the panel.
Once the panel was selected, the trial judge sent the jury home for the night without swearing them in after the state decided whether to file an affidavit of disqualification.
The trial judge eventually recused herself.
After a new trial judge was appointed, prosecutors filed a motion to quash the jury, arguing the first judge’s “biased rulings” had tainted the selection process.
Haywood’s trial went forward with a new jury, which found him guilty.
However, sentencing did not occur because Haywood filed a motion for a new trial, claiming the state committed misconduct by failing to disclose that two of its witnesses had received favorable treatment in exchange for their testimony.
Eventually, the state and defense stipulated to a new trial. The second trial judge vacated the guilty verdicts, quashed the jury and set the case for another trial.
A special prosecutor then handled the retrial.
Haywood was found guilty of complicity to commit the aggravated felony murders of M.N. and K.W., based on the predicate offenses of aggravated robbery, kidnapping and aggravated burglary; five capital specifications; complicity to commit aggravated robbery and complicity to commit two of the kidnappings.
He was found not guilty on the remaining counts and specifications.
The jury recommended he receive life in prison with parole. Haywood was then sentenced to 35-years-to-life.
On appeal, Haywood claimed his case should have been heard by the first jury.
He asked the appellate court to vacate his convictions and bar his retrial based on violations of due process and double jeopardy rights.
“He argues that the first trial judge abused her discretion when she agreed to delay impaneling that jury,” 9th District Judge Donna J. Carr wrote in her majority opinion.
“ He also argues that the second trial judge abused his discretion when he quashed the first jury without a sound reason for doing so and without considering reasonable alternatives. Finally, he argues that the state engaged in misconduct when it raised unsupported claims of judicial bias and secured the first jury’s dismissal.”
Haywood claimed the state did not have a legitimate reason to ask for a delay in impaneling the first jury.
“The record reflects that the state sought one very brief delay for the purpose of deciding whether to file an affidavit of disqualification,” Judge Carr stated. “… Because this was a death penalty case, the stakes at trial were extremely high for both sides, and any prejudice Haywood suffered as a result of the delay was minimal, given that the judge’s ruling merely preserved the status quo for a day.”
The panel also disagreed with Haywood’s other arguments.
“The record does not support Haywood’s assertion that the state’s actions amounted to an attempt to manipulate the proceedings,” the opinion stated. “Regardless of whether the first trial judge was actually biased, the conduct underlying the state’s allegations against her is a matter of record. There is no evidence that the state accused the first trial judge of conduct that she did not, in fact, commit. Nor is there evidence that the state’s actions amounted to tactical scheming.”
The appellate court declined to address whether the first trial judge was actually biased.
Ninth District judges Jennifer Hensal and Julie Schafer concurred.
The case is cited State v. Haywood, 2017-Ohio-8299.