Wade v. Timmerman-Cooper, No. 12-4229 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseWade was tried for rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and firearm specifications, stemming from his attack on a woman in her apartment. The conviction was overturned. Wade was retried for rape and kidnapping. Over defense objections, the state reintroduced testimony suggesting that Wade possessed a firearm during the attack. The court denied Wade’s request for a limiting instruction. Wade was again convicted of rape and kidnapping. The Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the kidnapping conviction because Wade only requested a limiting instruction regarding the element of force for rape and it could not say that the outcome of Wade’s kidnapping conviction clearly would have been different had there been a limiting instruction. The district court denied a habeas petition, rejecting arguments that Double Jeopardy Clause principles of collateral estoppel barred prosecutors in the second trial from reintroducing the firearm evidence that did not convince the first jury, and that, even if that evidence were otherwise admissible, the absence of a limiting instruction on the kidnapping count resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the firearm evidence was not an issue of ultimate fact in Wade’s second trial such that collateral estoppel required its exclusion. The lack of a limiting instruction did not “so infec[t] the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”
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.