State v. Bethel, 2020 Ohio 1343

In 1996 James Reynolds and Shannon Hawks were murdered. Robert Bethel was convicted of both aggravated murders and sentenced to death; conviction and sentence were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
Bethel executed an off-the-record proffer and pleaded guilty in 2001 admitting participation in the murders in exchange for dismissal of death specifications, but the plea agreement was voided when he refused to testify against co-defendant Jeremy Chavis; original charges and death specs were reinstated and Bethel was convicted at trial largely on his proffer and testimony from Donald Langbein and others.
Years after trial Bethel obtained new documents: an ATF report and a Columbus Police summary dubbed “Summary 86,” reporting inmate statements (from Ronald Withers and Shannon Williams) that implicated Chavis and his cousin Donald Langbein as the shooters, not Bethel.
Bethel filed a successive, untimely postconviction petition and a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based on Summary 86 and Withers' affidavit, alleging newly discovered evidence and Brady suppression.
The trial court denied relief, finding the filings untimely, Bethel was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, and Summary 86 would not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome; the court also found no Brady prejudice. The court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bethel)	Held
Whether Bethel was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering Summary 86 so as to excuse untimely postconviction/new-trial filing	Bethel learned or could have learned of the reports earlier; his delay in filing was unreasonable; he had opportunities to discover co-defendant statements pretrial	Summary 86 and Withers' statements were newly discovered, not disclosed to defense, and could not have been found with reasonable diligence	Court found no clear-and-convincing proof Bethel was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence and that the 16-month delay was unreasonable; no abuse of discretion in denying leave
Whether Summary 86 and related affidavits are Brady-material or create a reasonable probability of a different verdict	The evidence is not "direct, substantive" exculpatory proof; even if true, it would only impeach Bethel's trial testimony and would not undermine confidence in the verdict	The documents implicate Langbein/Chavis as principal offenders and would have altered plea/proffer decisions and trial outcome; suppression violated due process	Court held the new evidence would at most show Bethel lied about his alibi and would not create a reasonable probability of a different result; no Brady prejudice shown; denial affirmed

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution's suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (defines "reasonable probability" standard for withheld evidence affecting outcome)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (suppressed evidence undermines confidence in outcome to satisfy materiality)
Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885 (2017) (discusses materiality standard in Brady context)
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (Brady elements: favorable, suppressed, prejudicial)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (further explication of Brady components)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised earlier)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishes res judicata bar for postconviction claims)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (standards for denying postconviction petition without a hearing)
State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)