Does Ohio's death penalty scheme, classifying a jury's decision as a recommendation, accord with the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury as articulated in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and especially in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016)?

QUESTION PRESENTED A capital sentencing jury in Ohio has the responsibility of finding that one or more statutory aggravating circumstances were proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt as part of the verdict at the trial phase of a capital defendant’s trial. That, however, is not the completion of the capital sentencing process. Rather, under Ohio law, the jury must consider whether any mitigating circumstances have been demonstrated and then conduct a weighing process to determine whether, in its opinion, the statutory aggravating circumstances outweigh the factors in mitigation. Once the weighing process is complete, the jury renders a general verdict recommending to the trial court that sentence of death be imposed—without further explanation. Does Ohio’s death penalty scheme, classifying a jury’s decision as a recommendation, accord with the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury as articulated in Ring v. Arizona, 536 US. 584 (2002), and especially in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016), where this Court emphasized language in Florida’s death penalty scheme defining the jury’s decision as advisory? i