No. 20-6959
Mason Somers v. Jay Forshey, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: attorney-client-privilege constitutional-rights criminal-procedure discovery due-process ineffective-assistance jail-recordings pre-trial-discovery right-to-counsel trial-counsel
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment DueProcess HabeasCorpus
FifthAmendment DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-02-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for providing discoverable information to his client prior to receiving discovery from the government, resulting in the government using the client's recorded statements about those facts against him at trial
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
No question identified. : B. The Ohio Supreme Court's entry declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's appeal from the March 6, 201° decision. State v. Somers, 156 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2019-Ohi0-2892, 2019 LEXIS 1472, 126 N.E.3d 1169 (July 23, 27019) is attached as
Docket Entries
2021-03-01
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
2021-02-04
Waiver of right of respondent Jay Forshey to respond filed.
2020-12-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 26, 2021)
Attorneys
Jay Forshey
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent