State v. White, 2019 Ohio 4562

Background

Keith White was tried for attempted murder (acquitted), felonious assault, disrupting public services, and domestic violence arising from an assault on his partner; jury convicted on the latter three counts and the court imposed an eight-year aggregate sentence.
Defense subpoenaed the assistant prosecutor to testify about whether the victim told him there was cell‑phone video/photos of the assault and whether the State had that media; the court denied calling the prosecutor as a defense witness.
The prosecutor informed defense counsel before trial that the recovered phone contained no video; the victim testified at trial that White said he was videoing the attack but she was unsure whether a recording actually existed.
The State raised, and defense counsel acknowledged, that White was wearing jail clothing at trial; counsel did not move for White to change into civilian clothes or object to the attire in front of the jury.
On appeal White argued (1) denial of compulsory‑process/due‑process by precluding the assistant prosecutor as a witness and (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to seek civilian clothing (citing Estelle).
The court affirmed: it held the prosecutor’s testimony was unnecessary (victim’s testimony did not assert a recording existed), Rules of Professional Conduct were not outcome‑determinative, and counsel’s failure on the clothing issue did not constitute prejudice under Strickland/Estelle given absence of compulsion and overwhelming evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant could compel assistant prosecutor to testify about alleged phone/video (compulsory process/Brady)	White: prosecutor’s testimony was necessary to prove Brady material and impeach victim’s claim that video existed	State: prosecutor had already informed defense no video existed; victim could be cross‑examined; subpoena was tardy and sought to delay trial	Denied: court found victim never affirmatively testified a recording existed, prosecutor’s testimony would not have impeached her, and exclusion did not prejudice White
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to have defendant wear civilian clothes at trial	White: counsel’s unfamiliarity with Estelle shows deficient performance; appearing in jail clothes was inherently prejudicial	State: failure to object negates compulsion per Estelle; defendant may prefer jail garb; overwhelming evidence; invited‑error/waiver	Denied: no deficient performance or prejudice shown — no compulsion, no objection by defendant, and strong evidence supported convictions

Key Cases Cited

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (a defendant cannot be compelled to stand trial in identifiable prison clothing; failure to object negates compulsion)
Coleman v. State, 45 Ohio St.3d 298 (1989) (prosecutor testimony is disfavored; only permitted in limited circumstances where substitution impractical and testimony is necessary)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (right to present witnesses is fundamental but not unlimited; subject to trial rules)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (compulsory process and related due‑process principles for obtaining witness testimony)
State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 (2006) (excluded testimony error requires a proffer and effect on a substantial right)
State v. Gilmore, 28 Ohio St.3d 190 (1986) (proffer requirement for excluded evidence)
State v. Brown, 64 Ohio St.3d 649 (1992) (recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to present witnesses)