No. 19-7710October Term 2019Decided Apr 20, 2020
Young v. Jackson-Mitchell
The Supreme Court did not take Young's case, so the lower-court outcome stayed in place and the justices did not answer his constitutional questions.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Apr 20, 2020
- What it's about
This is a pending case where a party has asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court decision and has requested permission to proceed without paying standard court fees.
Question presented
1. Whether the District Court erred in denying petitioner's actual innocence claim. 2. Does a defendant in a criminal proceeding have a constitutional right pursuant to Section 10, Article I, of the Ohio/United States Constitutions Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to have adequate notice of the true nature and cause of the accusation against him as to afford him an opportunity to defend the allegations made against him in a criminal complaint pursuant to Crim.R.3, and Crim.R.5 (A)(1) at the initial stage of the proceeding? 3. After a defendant has been taken into custody, or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way does he have a constitutional right to be informed of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, privilege against self-incrimination and right to retained or appointed counsel in the face of interrogation?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit / Decision released Apr 20, 2020
- Area
Decided Supreme Court case
Briefing
What it's about
Young asked the Supreme Court to review the lower courts' rejection of his habeas corpus challenge, including claims about actual innocence, notice of the accusation, and warnings about constitutional rights during questioning. On April 20, 2020, the Court declined review, leaving the Sixth Circuit result in place without deciding those issues on the merits.
Impact
Young did not get Supreme Court review of his case, and the Court did not create any new nationwide rule on the questions he raised. For example, a prisoner making a similar actual-innocence or notice claim must still rely on existing lower-court law.
What's next
There is no further action scheduled in this Supreme Court docket. The Court has finished this petition, so any remaining steps would have to come outside this case.
What did the Supreme Court do in Young v. Jackson-Mitchell?
It declined to review Young's petition. That left the Sixth Circuit result in place without resolving the merits of his claims.
Who is affected by the outcome in Young v. Jackson-Mitchell?
Young is directly affected because he did not get Supreme Court review. Other inmates with similar habeas claims got no new Supreme Court guidance from this case.
What happens next in Young v. Jackson-Mitchell?
Nothing further is scheduled at the Supreme Court in this docket. The Court has finished this action.
Decision
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court did not take Young's case, so the lower-court outcome stayed in place and the justices did not answer his constitutional questions.
Impact
Young did not get Supreme Court review of his case, and the Court did not create any new nationwide rule on the questions he raised. For example, a prisoner making a similar actual-innocence or notice claim must still rely on existing lower-court law.
Not official Court text.
Timing
Decided April 20, 2020
The Court released its decision on April 20, 2020 without hearing oral argument.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 25, 2026
- Method
- Methodology