With a single exception, criminal defendants in the
United States seeking a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence are required to establish only that
the new evidence makes it more likely than not that,
in a new trial, they would be acquitted. This is not
only the near universal practice today, it also is the
historical practice dating back far into the nineteenth century.
The exception is Ohio. Under Ohio's common law,
criminal defendants with newly discovered evidence
are granted a new trial only if they provide clear and
convincing evidence that, in a new trial, they would be acquitted.
When there is newly discovered evidence making it
more likely than not that, in a new trial, the defendant would be acquitted, does it violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to deny a new trial
based on Ohio's uniquely elevated burden of proof?

Does Ohio's uniquely elevated burden of proof for new trials based on newly discovered evidence violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?