Newly Discovered Evidence

• State v. Gillispie, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a new trial. Newly discovered evidence concerning mannerisms and other personal characteristics of an alternative perpetrator of the rapes of which defendant was convicted was not inadmissible hearsay. And the newly discovered evidence creates a sufficient probability of a different result to justify a new trial. Reversed and Remanded. (Grady, P.J., concurring). (Hall, J., dissenting).

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Wilson, (Ohio 2012)

Crim.R. 33 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for a New Trial based on Newly Discovered Evidence filed outside the 120 day period failed to provide a reason why the newly discovered evidence could not have been obtained sooner; Furthermore, the motion was not filed within a reasonable time of discovering the “new” evidence; Thus, for those two reasons the trial court’s decision to overrule the motion is affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Scrushy Legal Team Files Motion for New Trial Based On Newly Discovered Evidence

To: POLITICAL EDITORS Contact: Arthur Leach, +1-404-786-6443, art@arthurwleach.com

• U.S. Newswire
• June 26, 2009

• State v. Nichols, (Ohio 2012)

disseminating material harmful to juveniles; tampering with evidence; separation of witnesses; effective assistance of counsel; request for a continuance; motion for a new trial; Crim.R. 33(C); newly discovered evidence; Crim.R. 33(A); Evid.R. 403(A); probative value; danger of unfair prejudice; relevant evidence; Due Process Clause

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Motions for Postconviction DNA Testing: Determining the Standard of Proof Necessary in Granting Requests

Introduction to the Legal Issues of Postconviction DNA Testing . III. Statutes Permitting Postconviction DNA Testing . V. Claims Based on Newly Discovered Evidence . VI. Current Standards of Determining Access to DNA Testing . VII. Evaluating DNA Test Results . VIII. State Legislation in Response to Issues Presented by Postconviction DNA Testing . IX. Federal Government Proposal and its Effect on the Future of DNA Testing . X. Conclusion .

• Capital University Law Review
• Nbr. 31-2, March 2003

• The Inescapable Federalism of the Ninth Amendment

For the past several decades, the majority of courts and commentators have viewed the Ninth Amendment as a provision justifying judicial enforcement of unenumerated individual rights against state and federal abridgment. The most influential advocate of this libertarian reading of the Ninth Amendment has been Professor Randy Barnett, who has argued in a number of articles and books that the Ninth Amendment was originally understood as guarding unenumerated natural rights. Recently uncovered historical evidence, however, suggests that those who framed and ratified the Ninth Amendment understood it as a guardian of the retained right to local self-government. Recognizing the challenge this evidence poses to libertarian theories of the Ninth Amendment, Professor Barnett now argues that wha...

...Because this is a newly discovered discussion of the Ninth Amendment by ...

• Iowa Law Review
• Nbr. 93-3, March 2008

• State v. Russell, (Ohio 2011)

DOUBLE JEOPARDY; FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; ALLEGEDLY NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE; UNDISCLOSED EVIDENCE NOT MATERIAL

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Zimbeck, (Ohio 2011)

Because defendant did not establish actual prejudice because of pre-indictment delay and the state established a justifiable reason for the delay in the form of newly discovered evidence, the lower court erred in dismissing murder charges against the defendant on the ground of pre-indictment delay.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Irwin, (Ohio 2011)

Motion for new trial; newly discovered evidence; Crim.R. 33(B); sentencing hearing; subpoena; expert witness.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Phelps, (Ohio 2011)

Motion for a new trial; newly discovered evidence; hypnotically refreshed testimony; potentially useful evidence

• Ohio Supreme Court