In a reply brief* filed with the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday, Jeff pursues his claim that his trial should not have been held in Ohio. This claim is being pursued in addition to his claims of innocence (which are based on flawed hair evidence at his trial, and on potentially exculpatory and impeaching evidence in his police file, which was suppressed by the state).
As explained previously, intrinsic problems with the death penalty appeals’ system mean that Jeff must pursue any legal route that may eventually allow him to clear his name and walk free. He sees the jurisdiction claim (his claim that Ohio lacked jurisdiction to try him) as a means to that end.
In Tuesday’s reply brief, Jeff addresses the state’s difficulty in establishing where it believes the murder took place. The state has constructed a suggested new theory about this, but it lacks coherence or consistency. As Jeff’s brief states:
“[T]he State’s lack of consistency highlights its failure to meet its burden, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was killed in Ohio. If the State cannot set forth a consistent argument as to where in Ohio the victim was killed, then it certainly cannot meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the victim was killed in Ohio.”
This point is persuasive. We trust the court will agree.