State v. Brooks, 2011 Ohio 5877

Brooks was convicted in 1983 by a three‑judge panel of aggravated murder and sentenced to death for killing his three sons.
The Ohio Supreme Court set his execution date for November 15, 2011, and Brooks filed a postconviction petition requesting an insanity inquiry.
The trial court found probable cause to believe Brooks was presently insane and ordered an insanity inquiry under R.C. 2949.29.
From October 11–20, 2011, the court conducted a four‑day competency hearing with testimony from Brooks, defense expert Dr. Bailey, and state expert Dr. Noffsinger, plus extensive documentary evidence.
One day before the court issued its findings, Brooks sought leave to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; the court denied the motion.
The appellate court consolidated and affirmed the judgments evaluating Brooks’s competency and the denial of leave to file a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency to be executed under Panetti standard	Brooks argues Panetti requires rational understanding of the reason for execution beyond Ford.	Brooks contends the trial court failed to apply Panetti’s rational‑understanding standard.	No reversible error; Panetti applied properly; Brooks failed to show lack of rational understanding.
Constitutionality of 60‑day competency inquiry timeframe	The 60‑day period deprives Brooks of due process and adequate investigation.	The accelerated schedule is appropriate given an execution date.	No due process violation; timeframe constitutionally sufficient under the circumstances.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in competency proceedings	The fast pace deprived counsel ofadequate preparation.	Counsel had opportunity to present evidence and no prejudice shown.	No merit; no due process or prejudice shown.
Denial of leave to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence	Newly discovered evidence would have altered the outcome; Brady material.	Evidence was duplicative, previously known, or could have been discovered with due diligence.	Trial court did not abuse its discretion; Petro/Brady criteria not satisfied.

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1986) (execution of insane inmates prohibited under Eighth Amendment)
Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (U.S. 2007) (insanity inquiry requires rational understanding of reasons for execution)
State v. Gondor, 860 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for postconviction proceedings under R.C. 2949.28)
State v. Scott, 748 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for postconviction insanity determinations)
State v. Berry, 2007-Ohio-2244 (Ohio- App. 2007) (due diligence and unavoidably prevented discovery analysis in new trial claims)