Prosecutors' duty to share evidence
Smith v. Ohio
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Edward Smith asks the Supreme Court to review an Ohio appeals court’s handling of his request to file a late new-trial motion.
- What's at stake
- Smith's claim that prosecutors withheld information remains unresolved at the Supreme Court; it has not decided whether his claim requires a due-process review.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He alleges prosecutors failed to disclose that they had not provided a required summary of an FBI agent’s expected testimony under federal rules for employee testimony (Touhy procedures), and says the court should have treated his claim of withheld favorable evidence (a Brady claim) as a due-process issue.
Ohio has a procedure for asking permission to file a new-trial motion after the deadline.
Question presented
1. When a ruling that insist that Smith could have discovered evidence in which the State surreptitiously failed to inform defense of its failure to follow proper Touhy regulation procedures, does it depart from every case that insist that it is not a defendant ’ s duty to scavenge for hints of undisclosed information? 2. Should the first District have made a Due process analysis on Smith ’ s Brady violation claim? 3. Should a claim of a Brady violation in a Motion for leave under Ohio ’ s Crim.R. 33(B) procedure incur a due process analysis based upon a State prosecutor ’ s failure to disclose to defense its failure to produce a summarized statement of a Federal FBI agent ’ s anticipated testimony before testifying in a State case? 4. Did the First District Court error when it failed to apply a due process analysis rather than an abuse of discretion standard when considering whether Smith established the state suppressed the Touhy violation? i.e., did the suppressed evidence deny Smith due process in his right to a fair trial when it suppressed materially favorable evidence in violation of Brady, and Smith ’ s Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights?
What happens next
The next step is for the Court to decide whether to hear the petition. No oral argument is scheduled.
Documents
Docket activity
Case data updated: title
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What are the Touhy procedures in Smith's case?
- They are federal rules for testimony by federal employees; Smith alleges prosecutors did not disclose that a required summary of an FBI agent's expected testimony was missing.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.