No. 24-6338

Hakeem-Ali Shomo v. Ohio, et al.

Lower Court: Ohio
Docketed: 2025-01-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-protection double-jeopardy fifth-amendment judicial-misconduct mistrial prosecutorial-intent
Latest Conference: 2025-03-21
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does the fundamental protection against double jeopardy, preserved in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, bar retrial when judicial misconduct leads to a defense request for a mistrial? Does that rule bar retrial even if a trial judge did not specifically intend to cause a defense mistrial motion? On these questions, this Court's past decisions are in noted conflict. To resolve it, should Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982), be limited to apply only in cases of prosecutorial misconduct?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

QP: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar retrial when judicial misconduct leads to a defense-requested mistrial, even without specific intent to provoke such a motion?

Docket Entries

2025-03-27
Waiver of Response of Anthony Bryant submitted.
2025-03-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/21/2025.
2025-02-21
Reply of Hakeem-Ali Shomo submitted.
2025-02-21
Reply of petitioner Hakeem-Ali Shomo filed.
2025-02-14
Brief of STATE OF OHIO in opposition submitted.
2025-02-14
Brief of respondent Ohio, et al. in opposition filed.
2025-01-29
Waiver of right of respondent The Honorable John J. Russo to respond filed.
2025-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 18, 2025)

Attorneys

Anthony Bryant
Robert A. DixonRobert A. Dixon, Attorney at Law, Respondent
Hakeem-Ali Shomo
Louis Everett GrubeFlowers & Grube, Petitioner
STATE OF OHIO
Daniel Tuyen VanCuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent
The Honorable John J. Russo
Terry BrennanBaker & Hosteller, LLP, Respondent