MARK HARTMAN v. DAVE YOST - Articles

All Content

MARK HARTMAN v. DAVE YOST

Posted by: Julia Wilburn on Jul 24, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Stephanie L. Watson, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Dave Yost.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: S. Adele Shank, LAW OFFICE OF S. ADELE SHANK, Columbus, Ohio, for Mark Hartman.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Stephanie L. Watson, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Dave Yost.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: S. Adele Shank, LAW OFFICE OF S. ADELE SHANK, Columbus, Ohio, for Mark Hartman.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton

A grand jury in Montgomery County, Ohio, indicted Mark Hartman for three counts of rape that occurred during a late-night sexual encounter. After a bench trial, a state judge convicted him of all three counts. Hartman now petitions for habeas Nos. 23-3309/3365 Hartman v. Yost Page 2 relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his two trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by improperly cross-examining witnesses during the trial. He also alleges his counsel provided ineffective assistance by misstating material facts about bench and jury trials and inducing him to waive his right to a jury. Ohio courts rejected his claims on the merits. Hartman argues that the state courts unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington when they did so. Those state-court decisions were not unreasonable. The district court erred by granting Hartman relief on his cross-examination claim. But the court properly denied relief on Hartman’s jury-waiver claim. We REVERSE the district court’s grant of a habeas writ on Hartman’s cross-examination claim, AFFIRM the district court’s denial of relief on his jurywaiver claim, and REMAND with instructions to deny Hartman’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1

Attachments: