Lemons v. State, 2020 Ohio 5619

Background

Anthony Lemons was convicted by jury in 1995 of murder and attempted murder; the only evidence linking him was eyewitness Jude Adamcik.
In 2013 the criminal trial judge granted Lemons a new trial under Brady after undisclosed police reports revealed problems with Adamcik’s identifications (photo arrays shown multiple times) and a Nike document undermining Adamcik’s claim about recognizing shoes at a lineup.
Adamcik died in 1996; after the new-trial grant the state ultimately could not proceed and Lemons’s conviction was dismissed/entered as acquittal or judgment of acquittal in subsequent proceedings.
Lemons filed a civil action under Ohio’s wrongful-imprisonment statute, R.C. 2743.48, claiming an "error in procedure" (an ongoing Brady violation) entitled him to a declaration he was wrongfully imprisoned.
This court remanded for the trial court to consider whether an ongoing Brady violation constitutes an "error in procedure" under (then-applicable) R.C. 2743.48(A)(5); before remand was resolved the General Assembly enacted H.B. 411 amending R.C. 2743.48 to expressly include Brady violations and to apply retroactively.
On remand the trial court granted summary judgment for Lemons, ruling the Brady violation was established and that the amended statute applied; the State appealed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactivity of H.B. 411	H.B. 411 expressly applies retroactively; therefore Lemons benefits	Amendment is not retroactive or violates Retroactivity Clause/due process	Court: Amendment plainly retroactive; not unconstitutional as applied (state failed to develop argument)
Reliance on prior criminal judge's Brady finding (issue preclusion)	Prior adjudication of Brady violation should preclude relitigation in civil action	Criminal findings should not automatically have preclusive effect in civil proceeding; must relitigate	Court: Collateral estoppel applies — issue was actually litigated, decided, essential to prior judgment, and parties had full opportunity; trial court properly relied on it
Whether state disclosed Nike-shoes information and materiality of Brady evidence	Lemons: suppressed Nike document was material and nondisclosure undermined confidence in verdict	State: information was orally disclosed; suppression not material	Court: Declined to relitigate; prior trial judge and this court already found the withheld Nike document material; defense counsel did not have the exculpatory Nike report
"Resulted in" release — causal link between Brady error and Lemons’s release	Lemons: Brady violation discovered during imprisonment led to reversal/new trial and thus resulted in release	State/Dissent: Release occurred only because the main witness died; Brady error did not directly cause release so statute not satisfied	Court: Under amended R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) the discovered Brady violation and its role in vacating the conviction satisfied the "resulted in" requirement; dissent disagreed but majority affirmed judgment

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishes prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (defining "material" under Brady: reasonable probability of a different result)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materiality and undermining confidence in outcome)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady/Impeachment evidence considerations)
Johnston v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 311 (2015) (retroactivity analysis of R.C. 2743.48 amendments)
Mansaray v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 277 (2014) (interpretation of timing language in former R.C. 2743.48(A)(5))
Walden v. State, 47 Ohio St.3d 47 (1989) (discusses limits of criminal acquittal as proof of innocence in civil wrongful-imprisonment claims)
Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (1988) (Retroactivity Clause test)
Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176 (1994) (requirements for collateral estoppel in Ohio)