Habeas corpus; 28 USC § 2254; Ineffective assistance of trial counsel; Strickland v Washington; Deference under the Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); Whether the state courts’ application of Strickland was objectively unreasonable; Deficient cross-examination; Whether petitioner could show a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different; Advice to waive the jury right

The court held that the district court erred by granting petitioner-Hartman habeas relief based on his ineffective assistance claim relating to his counsel’s cross-examination of the victim. It concluded that counsel’s strategy was a “reasonable attempt” to reveal inconsistencies in the testimony, even though it may have introduced information harmful to Hartman’s defense. The court found that the district court properly denied habeas relief based on his jury-waiver claim. Hartman, an Ohio prisoner, was convicted at a bench trial of three counts of rape. He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when cross-examining witnesses during his trial, and by inducing him to waive a jury trial by giving him incorrect information about his choices and then failing to obtain his informed consent to the waiver. The Ohio state courts affirmed his convictions. Hartman argued that they misapplied Strickland. The district court granted him relief on the cross-examination claim, finding that “trial counsel had introduced evidence of force that hadn’t been proven during direct examination” and failed to object to prejudicial statements. On appeal, the court first considered whether Hartman received ineffective assistance through his counsel’s deficient cross-examination of the victim and two other witnesses at trial. It reversed the district court’s conclusion that the state appellate court misapplied Strickland. The Ohio appellate court found, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, that the state “had introduced evidence of force” during the victim’s direct testimony. “Counsel reasonably attempted to reveal inconsistencies and biases during cross-examination to aid the judge in assessing [the victim’s] credibility.” Even though additional information about force was brought forward, this was done to emphasize inconsistencies in her testimony. The court held that the district court erred by failing to give AEDPA deference to those determinations. As to Hartman’s jury-waiver claim, the state appellate court ruled that his counsel’s advice that he waive his right to a jury trial was reasonable, and he failed to show on appeal “that this conclusion was based on an unreasonable determination of fact or an unreasonable application of federal law.” The court held that the state court “did not unreasonably apply Strickland[.]” Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with instructions to deny Hartman’s habeas petition.