State v. Lynch, 2018 Ohio 1078

Victim M.H., age 12 in 1994, reported sexual assault by Cornelius Lynch on May 26, 1994; a rape kit was collected and M.H. initially identified Lynch but recanted ~two weeks later.
The rape kit remained untested until 2012; BCI DNA testing in 2012–2014 produced a match showing Lynch could not be excluded as the source of semen.
Lynch was indicted in May 2014 on two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping; multiple pretrial motions to dismiss based on preindictment delay were denied.
First jury trial in March 2016 ended in a mistrial when a juror (Juror 7) became disruptive; an alternate had already been discharged and could not be reached.
Second jury trial in September 2016 resulted in convictions on all counts; sentences imposed to terms of 15 years to life, counts concurrent. Lynch appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lynch)	Held
Preindictment delay / due process	Delay justified by new DNA evidence; state reopened the investigation when DNA matched	Delay (18+ years) caused actual prejudice: key witness S.P. died, CCDCFS records and chain-of-custody info lost	Court: No actual prejudice shown; even if shown, delay justified by new DNA evidence — motion to dismiss properly denied
Prosecutorial misconduct (closing)	Prosecutor’s comments about the invasive rape-kit exam rebutted fabrication theory and were supported by testimony	Remarks were inflammatory, appealed to sympathy and were improper	Court: Remarks were fair inference from evidence, not improper; no plain error;
Double jeopardy / mistrial	Retrial permitted because mistrial was necessary due to disruptive juror and alternate unavailable	Lynch asserted there was no manifest necessity; he preferred proceeding with 11 jurors	Court: Trial court made thorough inquiry and reasonably found manifest necessity; retrial not barred
Ineffective assistance of counsel	N/A (state defends adequacy of representation)	Counsel failed to object to closing remarks and failed to move to dismiss after mistrial	Court: No deficient performance shown — comments were proper and retrial was lawful; Strickland test not met

U.S. v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (statutes of limitations are primary protection against stale charges; speculative prejudice insufficient)
U.S. v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (Due Process provides limited protection against preindictment delay)
State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (two-step burden-shifting test for preindictment-delay due-process claims)
State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (1984) (actual prejudice from unjustifiable preindictment delay violates due process)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial only when prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) ("manifest necessity" standard for retrial after mistrial)