State committed a Brady violation in Ohio

2025Brady Violation {¶ 32} In his third assignment of error, Wright argues that the State committed a Brady violation when it produced the Black Swamp invoice for the first time at the restitution hearing. {¶ 33} “In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that a state violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by suppressing evidence favorable to the accused where the evidence is material to guilt.” State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-749, ¶ 30 , citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).

2023Analysis A. There is no evidence to support Blade’s claim that the state committed a Brady violation. {¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Blade claims that the state violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.E.2d 215 (1963) by failing to “disclose the body camera footage of [his] arrest.” Blade argues that such footage would have 7. exonerated him of the resisting arrest offense and shown that Officer O’Connell “committed perjury on the stand.” {¶ 15} “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the

2026For the following reasons, this Court overrules Nagorka’s eighth assignment of error. {¶44} “It is well settled that a defendant is entitled to rely on the prosecution’s duty to produce evidence that is favorable to the defense.” State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783, ¶ 25.

2026For the following reasons, this Court overrules Nagorka’s eighth assignment of error. {¶44} “It is well settled that a defendant is entitled to rely on the prosecution’s duty to produce evidence that is favorable to the defense.” State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783, ¶ 25.

2025See State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-7701, ¶ 38-42 (7th Dist.) (where the State did not disclose a video to defense counsel until during the trial and the trial court granted the defendant’s request for a mistrial, the appellate -20- Case No. 9-24-37 court found no Brady violation and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss).

2025“To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate (1) that the evidence is favorable to the defendant, because it is either exculpatory or impeaching, (2) that the evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the state, and (3) that the defendant was prejudiced as a result.” Id., citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-282 (1999).

2025See State v. Sowell, 73 Ohio App.3d 672, 678 (1st Dist. 1991) (undisclosed cumulative testimony was not material because there was no reasonable probability that the duplicative testimony would have produced a different outcome at trial); see also Brown, 2007-Ohio-4837 , at ¶ 49 (undisclosed evidence is not material simply because it may have helped the defendant prepare for trial). {¶33} We conclude that the trial court erred in deciding that the State committed a Brady violation.

2023Analysis A. There is no evidence to support Blade’s claim that the state committed a Brady violation. {¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Blade claims that the state violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.E.2d 215 (1963) by failing to “disclose the body camera footage of [his] arrest.” Blade argues that such footage would have 7. exonerated him of the resisting arrest offense and shown that Officer O’Connell “committed perjury on the stand.” {¶ 15} “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the

2023Analysis A. There is no evidence to support Blade’s claim that the state committed a Brady violation. {¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Blade claims that the state violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.E.2d 215 (1963) by failing to “disclose the body camera footage of [his] arrest.” Blade argues that such footage would have 7. exonerated him of the resisting arrest offense and shown that Officer O’Connell “committed perjury on the stand.” {¶ 15} “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the

2022R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). {¶ 28} Showing that a defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering a fact requires “more than simply showing he was unaware of a fact. ‘Unavoidably prevented from discovering’ typically means the defendant was unaware of the facts upon which the petition was based and he was unable to discover them through reasonable 16. diligence.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Clay, 2018-Ohio-985 , 108 N.E.3d 642, ¶ 33 (7th Dist.). {¶ 29} When the defendant claims that the state committed a Brady violation and suppressed the evidence he is relying on, he is not required to show th

2022R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). {¶ 28} Showing that a defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering a fact requires “more than simply showing he was unaware of a fact. ‘Unavoidably prevented from discovering’ typically means the defendant was unaware of the facts upon which the petition was based and he was unable to discover them through reasonable 16. diligence.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Clay, 2018-Ohio-985 , 108 N.E.3d 642, ¶ 33 (7th Dist.). {¶ 29} When the defendant claims that the state committed a Brady violation and suppressed the evidence he is relying on, he is not required to show th

2020The trial court further noted that this court in Lemons, 2017-Ohio-8584 , 100 N.E.3d 871 , agreed with the criminal trial judge that the state committed a Brady violation.

2020The trial court further noted that this court in Lemons, 2017-Ohio-8584 , 100 N.E.3d 871 , agreed with the criminal trial judge that the state committed a Brady violation.