Does Ohio's uniquely elevated burden of proof for new trials based on newly discovered evidence violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

QUESTION PRESENTED With a single exception, criminal defendants in the United States seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are required to establish only that the new evidence makes it more likely than not that, in a new trial, they would be acquitted. This is not only the near universal practice today, it also is the historical practice dating back far into the nineteenth century. The exception is Ohio. Under Ohio’s common law, criminal defendants with newly discovered evidence are granted a new trial only if they provide clear and convincing evidence that, in a new trial, they would be acquitted. When there is newly discovered evidence making it more likely than not that, in a new trial, the defendant would be acquitted, does it violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to deny a new trial based on Ohio’s uniquely elevated burden of proof?