Stumpf v. Houk, No. 01-3613 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant admitted to participating in the 1984 robbery and to shooting husband (who survived), but claimed not to have shot wife. He entered a plea of guilty to aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder. At a penalty hearing, defendant argued that he had participated in the plot only under the influence of Wesley, who shot wife. The panel sentenced defendant to death. When Wesley was tried, the state presented evidence that he, not defendant, was the principal offender in the murder. Wesley was sentenced to life imprisonment with possibility of parole after 20 years. Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the death sentence was rejected. The Sixth Circuit's 2004 grant of habeas corpus was remanded by the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit again remanded with instructions that the district court issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus unless the state holds a new sentencing hearing within 90 days. Defendant's due process rights were violated by arguments leaving the impression with that he was the principal offender in the murder, even though the state had evidence and a belief that Wesley was actually the triggerman. It is likely that the panel would not have imposed a death had the state not persisted in its efforts.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 3, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.