Evidence withheld by prosecutors
Ohio, ex rel. John Wells v. Jane M. Hanlin
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- John Wells asks the Court to review Ohio’s refusal to order prosecutors to disclose evidence he says was unlawfully withheld, arguing that two trial-court motions have gone undecided for six years and an appeal is unavailable.
- What's at stake
- Wells's request for disclosure remains unresolved; he says the six-year wait for the trial court to act leaves him without an available appeal.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
His petition was distributed for a conference, which is not a grant of Supreme Court review.
Wells says two motions asking the trial court to order disclosure have gone undecided for six years, leaving an appeal unavailable.
Wells asks whether Ohio courts can use a court order requiring an official to act (mandamus) to make prosecutors disclose evidence he says Brady v. Maryland requires them to turn over.
Question presented
1. Are the Duties Set Out in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its Progeny, “ Clear Legal Duties ” Enjoined Upon State Prosecuting Attorneys by United States Constitutional Law Expounded by the United States Supreme Court? 2. Is Mandamus a Proper Remedy to Compel State Prosecutors to Disclose Illegally Suppressed Brady Material where a State ’ s Constitution and Laws Provided the Remedy of Mandamus to Compel Government Officers, Officials, Agents, and Agencies, to Perform Acts Specifically Enjoined upon Them by Law, but Do Not Provide a Specific Remedy to Compel Disclosure of Brady Material? 3. Does the fact that two Motions to Compel disclosure of illegally Suppressed Brady Material, that have remained pending in the trial court for six years, may someday be finally decided and make available an appeal, constitute an adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of the law sufficient to preclude mandamus to compel a State Prosecutor to disclose Brady Material? 4. Does the state ’ s highest court ’ s refusal to intervene and refusal to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a State prosecutor to disclose illegally withheld Brady Material deprive the Petitioner of a constitutionally guaranteed remedy and Due Process of Law where the state trial court ’ s six-year refusal to rule on motions to compel disclosure of Brady Material renders the remedy of appeal unavailable? 5. Is it a violation of Due Process for the state ’ s highest court to fail or refuse to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a State prosecutor to disclose illegally suppressed Brady material despite the presentation of clear and convincing evidence proving that the state prosecutor illegally suppressed Brady material?
What happens next
The petition was distributed for the Court's Nov. 13, 2026, conference, where the justices may consider whether to hear it. The conference notice does not promise a decision date.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials from the Court and the parties. Grounded in docket records and cited sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.