Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Masongreen2 sentences2009We agree. {¶ 14} The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that “due process and fundamental fairness require the state to provide an indigent criminal defendant with ‘access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.’ ” State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 21 , quoting Ake v. Oklahoma (1985), 470 U.S. 68, 77 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 ; see also State v. Mason (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 149 , 694 N.E.2d 932 . 2009We agree. {¶ 14} The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that “due process and fundamental fairness require the state to provide an indigent criminal defendant with ‘access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.’ ” State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 21 , quoting Ake v. Oklahoma (1985), 470 U.S. 68, 77 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 ; see also State v. Mason (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 149 , 694 N.E.2d 932 . | 2 | 3 |
Ake v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2022The court stated, “[a] criminal trial where the defendant does not have ‘access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense’ is fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 556, quoting Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 53 (1985). 2022The court stated, “[a] criminal trial where the defendant does not have ‘access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense’ is fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 556, quoting Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 53 (1985). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Bradygreen2 sentences2022Appellant specifically sought funds to hire an expert witness to testify that the odor of legal hemp and illegal marijuana are indistinguishable. {¶22} The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that “due process and fundamental fairness require the state to provide an indigent criminal defendant with ‘access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.’ “State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008–Ohio–4493, 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 21 , quoting Ake v. Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00018 9 Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). 2022Appellant specifically sought funds to hire an expert witness to testify that the odor of legal hemp and illegal marijuana are indistinguishable. {¶22} The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that “due process and fundamental fairness require the state to provide an indigent criminal defendant with ‘access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.’ “State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008–Ohio–4493, 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 21 , quoting Ake v. Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00018 9 Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Masongreen1 sentence2022See also State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 149 , 1998-Ohio-370 , 694 N.E.2d 932 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sargent
green
2 sentences2009Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that “due process * * * requires that an indigent criminal defendant be provided funds to obtain expert assistance at state expense only where the trial court finds, in the exercise of a sound discretion, that the defendant has made a particularized showing (1) of a reasonable probability that the requested expert would aid in his defense, and (2) that denial of the requested expert assistance would result in an unfair trial.” Mason at 150, 694 N.E.2d 932 . *44 {¶ 15} We find the instant case analogous to the First Appellate District’s decisi 2009Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that “due process * * * requires that an indigent criminal defendant be provided funds to obtain expert assistance at state expense only where the trial court finds, in the exercise of a sound discretion, that the defendant has made a particularized showing (1) of a reasonable probability that the requested expert would aid in his defense, and (2) that denial of the requested expert assistance would result in an unfair trial.” Mason at 150, 694 N.E.2d 932 . *44 {¶ 15} We find the instant case analogous to the First Appellate District’s decisi | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.