Michael Madison v. Ohio

Petitioner was sentenced to death after the State presented extensive evidence from his courtordered mental exam by a prosecution-retained psychiatrist. But, unlike in Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987), and Kansas v. Cheever, 571 U.S. 87 (2013), Petitioner had not placed his mental state directly in issue by asserting a “mental-status defense.” He did not claim that he had a mental disease or defect or that he suffered from any mental impairment which caused him to lack capacity to appreciate the criminality of the subject conduct. Instead, Petitioner presented a mitigation case focused on his reduced moral culpability due to his abusive childhood and troubling family history. Two psychologists explained that mitigation theory in the context of widely accepted research in their profession, including that abuse is known to negatively affect children’s developing brains. The State’s psychiatrist purported to rebut Petitioner’s mitigation with video of the mental exam and his opinions that Petitioner has “antisocial personality disorder” and is “evil” and “depraved.” Three issues are presented: 1. When a capital defendant intends to present mitigation evidence from mental health