State v. Jones, 2019 Ohio 1548

On Jan. 9, 2018, while Clark County Jail cells were searched, inmate Timothy Jones was discovered with a 3–5 inch shank in his sock and later indicted under R.C. 2923.131(B) for possession of a deadly weapon while under detention (fifth-degree felony).
Jones was tried by jury, found guilty on July 12, 2018, and sentenced to 12 months on July 18, 2018.
Shortly before trial, defense counsel issued subpoenas duces tecum seeking Clark County Jail and prosecutor records for other inmates charged with similar offenses, alleging selective prosecution based on race.
The State moved to quash the subpoenas; at the July 9 hearing the court required at least some evidence of racially motivated prosecution before allowing broad discovery and quashed the subpoenas as speculative.
Jones appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion and denied his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by quashing the subpoenas and preventing evidence of selective prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erroneously denied Jones the right to present a defense by quashing subpoenas for records about other prosecutions	State: the prosecution was properly instituted for possession of a weapon; no constitutional violation	Jones: subpoenas were needed to show selective prosecution (racially motivated) and to present that defense at trial	Court: No error — selective-prosecution claims are not defenses on the merits and must be raised pretrial; Jones offered no prima facie evidence to justify discovery or an evidentiary hearing
Whether Jones was entitled to discovery/evidentiary hearing on selective prosecution	State: presumption of nondiscriminatory prosecution; discovery requires prima facie showing	Jones: subpoenas would reveal whether others similarly situated were charged or not	Held: Jones failed to present any evidence he was singled out or that prosecutor acted in bad faith; subpoenas would not have shown uncharged instances and thus no colorable claim

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (constitutional guarantee of opportunity to present a complete defense)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (limitations on evidence-defendant may present)
Alley v. Bell, 307 F.3d 380 (trial court control over evidence presentation; Constitution does not guarantee any evidence desired)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (burden to make prima facie selective-prosecution showing)
United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (framework for selective-prosecution prima facie showing)
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (presumption of prosecutorial regularity; discovery requires prima facie showing)