No. 25-6488

Matthew Jones v. Dave Yost, Attorney General of Ohio

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-01-06
Status: Pending
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process plea-agreement plea-offer right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2026-03-06
Question Presented (from Petition)

The first question presented is :
Should the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach at the moment
an accused is confronted by his expert adversary with a plea
offer where the results of the confrontation might well settle
his fate ?

The second question presented is :
Gould a defendant's objectively reasonable subjective (mis)understanding
of the terms and consequences of a plea agreement ever form the basis of
a Due Process issue concerning the voluntariness of the plea ?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach at the moment an accused is confronted by his expert adversary with a plea offer where the results of the confrontation might well settle his fate?

Docket Entries

2026-02-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2026.
2025-09-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 5, 2026)
2025-07-30
Application (25A117) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until September 20, 2025.
2025-07-09
Application (25A117) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 22, 2025 to September 20, 2025, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.

Attorneys

Matthew Jones
Matthew Jones — Petitioner