No. 23-6345

Jeffrey M. Spring, Sr. v. David W. Gray, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-12-26
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 6th-amendment constitutional-rights due-process evidentiary-hearing ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel newly-discovered-evidence procedural-due-process sixth-amendment substantive-due-process
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-02-16
Question Presented (from Petition)

1: Is it a violation of substantive and procedural due process for the Ohio Courts to deny the defendant in this matter an evidentiary hearing and allow him to further develop the state record with newly discovered evidence supporting a valid defense not pursued at trial by trial counsel?
Violating the defendants constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

2: Was it ineffective assistance of trial counsel to fail to investigate an accident defense. In violation of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is it a violation of substantive and procedural due process to deny the defendant an evidentiary hearing to develop newly discovered evidence?

Docket Entries

2024-02-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-01-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-08
Waiver of right of respondent David W. Gray to respond filed.
2023-09-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 25, 2024)

Attorneys

David W. Gray
Michael Jason HendershotOhio Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Jeffrey M. Spring
Jeffrey M. Spring Sr. — Petitioner