UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ NATHANIEL JACKSON, │ Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, │ > Nos. 21-3207/3280 │ v. │ │ BILL COOL, Warden, │ Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown. No. 4:07-cv-00880—James S. Gwin, District Judge.

Argued: March 18, 2024

Decided and Filed: August 6, 2024

Before: MOORE, COLE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Jana M. Bosch, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Adam M. Rusnak, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: Jana M. Bosch, Benjamin M. Flowers, Diane R. Brey, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross- Appellee. Adam M. Rusnak, Paul R. Bottei, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Nos. 21-3207/3280 Jackson v. Cool Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.

The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy that “guard[s] against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). This case is the epitome of such an extreme judicial malfunction.

Petitioner Nathaniel Jackson was convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death. But Jackson’s sentencing proceeding was blatantly unconstitutional at its core due to the trial- court judge’s bias and misconduct, as well as his exclusion at sentencing of relevant mitigating evidence. The prejudicial judicial bias and misconduct included numerous ex parte communications between the judge and prosecutor regarding substantive sentencing issues and the ghost writing by the prosecutor of the judge’s opinion sentencing Jackson to death. In state court, when this unethical conduct came to light, the Ohio appellate courts publicly reprimanded the trial judge and ordered him to conduct new sentencing proceedings: the judge was to “personally review and evaluate the appropriateness of the death penalty” and “prepare an entirely new sentencing entry.”

On remand, Jackson moved to present three additional volumes of mitigating evidence. The trial judge denied the motion, and he orally resentenced Jackson based on the stale, ten-year- old mitigation record. A few hours after the resentencing hearing concluded, the judge issued a second opinion sentencing Jackson to death that was functionally identical to the original, corrupted opinion and contrary to the Ohio Court of Appeals’ specific instructions on remand. Nevertheless, the Ohio appellate courts affirmed Jackson’s sentence.

Jackson then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court granted Jackson’s petition on his claim that he was unconstitutionally denied the opportunity to present relevant mitiga