Case No. 2009-2028 State of Ohio v. Roland Davis







Download File : 360p
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
Width : px Height : px
Code :
 Facebook Embed : To embed this video into your Facebook page, copy and paste the above URL into Facebook's 'Link' box in its 'Share' options.
Please Note : End points and dimensions are not recognized by Facebook.
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
May Trial Court Consider Motion for New Trial After Defendant's Conviction Has Been Upheld on Appeal?

State of Ohio v. Roland Davis, Case no. 2009-2028
5th District Court of Appeals (Licking County)


* After a court of appeals has reviewed and affirmed the conviction of a criminal defendant on direct appeal, does the trial court in which the defendant was convicted have jurisdiction to consider a motion for a new trial based on discovery of new evidence where the legal claim asserted by the defendant in the new trial motion was not addressed in his direct appeal?

* Do Ohio’s intermediate courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s judgment denying a defense motion for a new trial in a death penalty case, or does the 1994 amendment to the Ohio Constitution that eliminated intermediate appellate review of capital cases require death penalty defendants to appeal such rulings directly to the Supreme Court of Ohio?
00:00:40Stephen P. Hardwick for Roland Davis
00:05:40Kenneth W. Oswalt for the State of Ohio
00:24:06Summation: Stephen P. Hardwick for Roland Davis