State v. Keenan
143 Ohio St. 3d 397
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Thomas M. Keenan was convicted of murder, sentenced to death, and after multiple appeals this court previously affirmed his conviction and sentence; later federal habeas relief was granted based on Brady violations.
- The federal district court ordered Ohio to set aside the conviction or retry Keenan; the state elected retrial.
- At a new proceedings, Keenan moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and Brady violations made a fair retrial impossible.
- The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice, finding willful suppression of exculpatory evidence, severe prejudice to Keenan (including loss of key witnesses), and that lesser sanctions would not cure the harm.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal; the Ohio Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the parties to develop the record and by prematurely concluding a fair trial was impossible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keenan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate for discovery/Brady violations | Dismissal necessary because willful, long‑term suppression of exculpatory material made a fair retrial impossible (loss of witnesses, impeachment opportunities) | Trial court must impose least severe sanction; habeas relief already remedied violations; dismissal premature without fuller record | Reversed: dismissal was premature; trial court abused discretion by deciding impossibility of fair trial without allowing record development |
| Standard for sanctioning Crim.R.16 violations | Severe sanctions justified where violations are egregious and prejudice cannot be cured | Court must first consider and impose the least severe sanction consistent with discovery rules | Court recognized that extreme Brady violations can justify dismissal but found this determination must follow development of record at retrial |
| Whether prejudice must be shown to dismiss on due‑process grounds | Keenan: prejudice is manifest (dead eyewitness; inability to confront/impeach) | State: defendant must show actual prejudice; cannot presume prejudice from passage of time; habeas relief sufficed | Court required factual development to assess prejudice at retrial rather than resolving it pretrial |
| Role of unavailable deceased witnesses (effect on confrontation/impeachment) | Loss of key witnesses (e.g., Espinoza) so severe that prior testimony and impeachment unavailable, undermining fairness | State: although loss harms defense, state will also face evidentiary difficulties; relief should be tailored | Court held that loss of witnesses may impact fairness but determination must await evidentiary development at trial stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895) (loss of witnesses affects both sides; exclusion/admission risks injustice)
- State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and mandate to impose least severe discovery sanction)
- State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (1983) (three‑factor Parson test: willfulness, benefit of foreknowledge, prejudice)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)