discussed Cited "see" State v. Hoffman (Slip Opinion) (2×) See Overton v. Ohio, 534 U.S. 982 , 122 S.Ct. 389 , 151 L.Ed.2d 317 (2001) (statement of Breyer, J.).

discussed Cited "see" State v. Jones See Overton v. Ohio, 534 U.S. 982 , 122 S.Ct. 389 , 151 L.Ed.2d 317 (2001) (Breyer, J., with three other justices concurring in a statement disagreeing with the Court’s denial of certiorari in a case involving a form complaint used by the city of Toledo and announcing that they believe summary reversal was in order because the Court’s position on the issue is clear). {¶38} Abiding by this case law, the Second Appellate District of Ohio has dismissed a complaint after finding it insufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest warrant.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shelton v. United States (2×) The Court held that the fact that the government withheld Brady material could damage the prosecution’s case by creating doubt about “the good faith of the [criminal] investigation.” Id. at 445 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 ; cf. Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 621 , 16 S.Ct. 895 , 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1896) (“The destruction, suppression, or fabrication of evidence undoubtedly gives rise to a presumption of guilt, to be dealt by the jury.”); see also Farley v. United States 767 A.2d 225, 241 (D.C.2001) (Ruiz, J., dissenting) (noting that undisclosed “testimony [about unwarranted physically ab…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shelton v. United States The Court held that the fact that the government withheld Brady material could damage the prosecution’s case by creating doubt about “the good faith of the [criminal] investigation.” Id. at 445 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 ; cf. Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 621 , 16 S.Ct. 895 , 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1896) (“The destruction, suppression, or fabrication of evidence undoubtedly gives rise to a presumption of guilt, to be dealt by the jury.”); see also Farley v. United States 767 A.2d 225, 241 (D.C.2001) (Ruiz, J., *370 dissenting) (noting that undisclosed “testimony [about unwarranted physical…