State v. Jackson, 2018 Ohio 1633

On July 13, 2016, Kenneth Mayock was robbed and assaulted outside a nightclub; three men fled in his van and his iPhone remained in the van. Mayock later identified Emmanuel Jackson (African‑American) and two white co‑defendants.
Police located the van shortly after, recovered Mayock’s phone near where Jackson was arrested, and found sandals near the van that Jackson admitted were his. Mayock made a cold‑stand identification and identified Jackson’s right‑arm tattoo at trial.
Jackson, Anthony Palmentera, and Bradley Lease were jointly indicted on multiple counts including aggravated robbery, robbery, grand theft, and kidnapping; Jackson and Lease faced weapons‑under‑disability counts. The jury convicted Jackson on aggravated robbery, robbery, grand theft, kidnapping, and related specifications.
Immediately before trial the prosecutor described a package plea offer. After voir dire and lunch, Palmentera and Lease accepted plea agreements (without Jackson or his counsel present) that included a condition prohibiting them from testifying for Jackson.
Jackson appealed, arguing the State’s conditioning of the co‑defendants’ pleas on non‑testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. The trial court had accepted the pleas; on appeal the court found the pleas and condition improper but affirmed because Jackson failed to show the missing testimony would have been material and favorable and the remaining evidence left no reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea agreements that bar co‑defendants from testifying violate the defendant's right to compulsory process	State: Pleas were lawfully entered and did not deprive rights (argued implicitly)	Jackson: Plea condition preventing co‑defendants from testifying violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process	Court: Condition was improper and precluded testimony, but violation requires a showing the excluded testimony would be material and favorable; Jackson failed to make that showing
Whether Jackson waived the claim by not raising it in trial court	State: Claim waived because not raised below	Jackson: He and counsel were unaware pleas contained non‑testimony condition; they were not present at plea hearing	Court: No waiver — record shows Jackson and counsel did not know of the condition, so claim preserved
Whether the absence of co‑defendants’ testimony required reversal or new trial	State: Even if testimony excluded, the defense must show materiality; evidence of guilt was overwhelming	Jackson: State’s suppression of testimony created reasonable probability testimony would aid defense; lack of access prevented showing materiality	Court: Materiality not shown; Valenzuela‑Bernal requires plausible, not detailed, claim of favorable materiality and Jackson offered none; overwhelming evidence supports conviction; no reversible error

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (recognizing the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process and that statutes barring co‑defendant testimony may violate it)
United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207 (governmental impairment of defendant’s ability to call witnesses cannot be tolerated)
State v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197 (reversal where government secured plea barring co‑defendant from testifying and made agreement voidable if witness testified)
United States v. Valenzuela‑Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (defendant must plausibly show that excluded witness testimony would be material and favorable; mere absence insufficient)
Fort v. State, 101 N.J. 123 (trial‑court admonition that state should not suppress truth by conditioning pleas to prevent defense testimony)