The First Appellate District of Ohio has affirmed the murder conviction of Redeemed Hardy, rejecting his claims that the evidence was insufficient and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The appellate court acknowledged significant weaknesses in the State’s key evidence—surveillance video—but ultimately found that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including DNA and ballistics findings, was enough to sustain the jury’s guilty verdict.
Hardy was convicted by a jury for the murder of D.B. and an accompanying firearm specification, stemming from a fatal shooting that occurred on January 12, 2024, near Reading Road and Stewart Place in Hamilton County. Hardy was initially charged with several counts, including aggravated murder, but the trial court merged most charges into a final conviction for murder (R.C. 2903.02(A)) and the firearm specification. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 years to life in prison.
The Circumstantial Case Against Hardy
The prosecution’s case heavily relied on video footage compiled by Cincinnati Police Detective Carl Beebe, who tracked an individual through various security cameras before, during, and after the shooting. The tracked individual was identified primarily by wearing matching camouflage clothing and a distinct reflection on their right wrist.
However, the appellate court noted significant gaps in this visual evidence. As Judge Crouse wrote in the opinion, after viewing the video, the court “cannot say with any certainty that the same individual appears in each sequence.” The defense argued that the poor quality of the video, combined with the lack of eyewitnesses, meant the State failed to prove Hardy’s identity as the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite these concerns about the video, the appellate court found ample other evidence to support the conviction. This included:
* Ballistics Match: A Ruger GP100 revolver recovered from a safe in Hardy’s apartment was confirmed by an examiner to have fired the bullet recovered from the victim’s body, as well as shell casings found in Hardy’s apartment.
* DNA Evidence: Forensic testing revealed Hardy’s DNA on both the trigger guard of the recovered revolver and on a camouflage jacket found in his apartment.
* Physical Evidence: The camouflage jacket also tested positive for gunshot residue. Hardy was found in possession of matching camouflage pants and jacket during the execution of a search warrant 17 days after the murder.
The court concluded that when viewing these facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could reasonably infer that Hardy was the shooter, satisfying the sufficiency standard for the murder conviction.
Challenging the Weight of the Evidence
Hardy also argued that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, pointing out the 17-day delay between the shooting and the search of his apartment. He also highlighted his own actions after the shooting: he encountered police at the secured scene while walking his dog and told an officer he lived at 757 Ridgeway Avenue, the apartment complex linked to the shooter in the video footage. Hardy suggested it was unrealistic for a killer to return to the scene and interact with police.
The appeals court was unpersuaded. It noted that the jury was aware of the time delay and could weigh that factor accordingly. Furthermore, the court suggested a plausible, non-exculpatory reason for Hardy’s return: “The jury could reasonably have found that Hardy, after changing his clothes, returned to the crime scene to see if the body had been discovered and to glean information about the investigation.”
Ineffective Assistance Claims Dismissed
Hardy raised three main claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel under the *Strickland* standard, arguing his lawyers’ performance was deficient and prejudicial.
1. Failure to Move for a Mistrial: Defense counsel learned that at least one juror might have seen Hardy being escorted in handcuffs in a shared hallway near the jury room. The defense team discussed the situation with the judge and deputies. After speaking with the deputies, who gave conflicting accounts about whether the juror actually saw the handcuffs clearly, defense counsel deliberately chose *not* to move for a mistrial or ask for a curative instruction, believing drawing more attention to the incident would be more damaging. The court found this decision reasonable, as counsel actively investigated the claim and weighed the strategic risks of escalation.
2. Failure to Cross-Examine Witnesses: Hardy argued counsel should have cross-examined the victim’s sister and the initial responding officers (Bedinghaus and Sieving) about the victim’s life and the precise condition of the body at the scene. The court dismissed this, stating that the core issue was identity, not the victim’s background or the initial state of the body. Since the forensic pathologist provided detailed testimony on the wounds, further cross-examination on those points was deemed unnecessary to the defense strategy.
3. Failure to Retain an Expert: Finally, Hardy claimed counsel should have hired a crime scene reconstruction expert to challenge the shaky video evidence. The appellate court deemed this a matter of trial strategy. Given the poor quality of the video, the court could not speculate that an expert would have produced testimony so compelling that it would have changed the outcome of the trial.
Finding no merit in any of Hardy’s arguments, the First Appellate District affirmed the judgment of the trial court.