-
-
Recent News:
- Seven Years On September 4, 2025
- New Case Summary Page February 27, 2025
- Indiana State Police: Records Suppressed February 14, 2025
- Evidentiary Hearing Day 5: The Speck of Blood November 17, 2024
- Evidentiary Hearing: Day 4 October 19, 2024
- Evidentiary Hearing: Day 3 October 18, 2024
- Evidentiary Hearing: Day 2 October 17, 2024
- Evidentiary Hearing Begins October 16, 2024
- “A Political Seizure of Power” October 2, 2024
- Evidentiary Hearing Delayed September 23, 2024
-
Labels:
2015 Amber Garrett capital punishment Chillicothe Correctional Institution criminal justice death penalty death row Eric Horn evidentiary hearing execution drugs executions Governor Kasich Governor Mike DeWine Hamilton County Indiana injustice innocence Jeffrey Wogenstahl Jeff Wogenstahl Joe Deters jurisdiction jurors lethal-injection drugs lethal injections midazolam miscarriages of justice official misconduct Ohio Ohioans to Stop Executions Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Ohio Supreme Court oral argument Peggy Garrett prosecutorial misconduct prosecutor misconduct prosecutors subject-matter jurisdiction suppressed evidence Supreme Court of Ohio Terry Collins torture USA US Supreme Court wrongful conviction wrongful convictions
We also support:
Translate this page

Tag Archives: jurisdiction
“A Political Seizure of Power”
Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s evidentiary hearing at the Hamilton Court of Common Pleas has been rescheduled: the dates will be Tuesday 15 – Friday 18 October, 2024. The rescheduling became possible as soon as the Ohio Supreme Court concluded Jeff’s other pending … Continue reading
Jurisdiction Ruling: a Reassuring Footnote
A Sixth Circuit court has denied[i] Jeffrey Wogenstahl the opportunity to make a separate appeal to establish whether Ohio had jurisdiction to try him. Jeff wanted to appeal an Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling[ii] from 2017. In that ruling the majority … Continue reading
Shadow of Execution Date Lifted
Jeffrey Wogenstahl has been granted an indefinite stay of execution by the Ohio Supreme Court (see Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements October 24, 2018): 1995-0042. State v. Wogenstahl. Hamilton App. No. C-930222. On appellant’s motion to reopen direct appeal. Motion … Continue reading
A Flawed Statute
Jeffrey Wogenstahl has filed a new petition in the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming that Ohio relied on a flawed statute to allow itself jurisdiction to try him.* At fault was the statute’s sub-section known as R.C. §2901.11(D); this addressed situations … Continue reading
A Tremendous Error
The Ohio Supreme Court has again rejected Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s claim that Ohio did not have jurisdiction to try him. The court’s decision,[i] announced last month, is mystifying. The state did not file a rebuttal of the points made by Jeff … Continue reading
The Majority Judges Erred
Jeffrey Wogenstahl has appealed an unfavorable Ohio Supreme Court ruling.* Last month five of the judges rejected his claim that Ohio lacked jurisdiction to try him for murder; but Chief Justice O’Connor wrote a compelling dissent in his support (see … Continue reading
Chief Justice O’Connor’s Detailed Appraisal
In a 5:2 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio has rejected Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s claim that Ohio lacked jurisdiction to try him for murder.* In order to reach their decision, the judges examined the state’s theory of events surrounding the murder … Continue reading
Oral Argument: April 4, 2017
Tuesday, April 4, 2017 will be an important day for Jeffrey Wogenstahl. Oral argument has been scheduled for that day,* to consider whether his Ohio trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him (Jeff has a strong case that because the … Continue reading
A Question of Jurisdiction
Yesterday Jeff’s lawyers addressed the issue which the Ohio Supreme Court has invited them to raise, namely that Jeff’s trial court did not have jurisdiction to try him. The relevant statute in force at the time of the crime of … Continue reading
“Motion to recuse denied.”
Ohio Supreme Court Justice O’Neill has made it clear that he will not grant a request to remove himself from Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s case. The judge explained: “…it would be a violation of my oath of office to ignore my obligation to … Continue reading