-
-
Recent News:
- Justice Joseph T. Deters March 17, 2023
- Half a Lifetime Ago November 23, 2022
- Thirty Long Years November 24, 2021
- Peggy Garrett Acting Weird October 10, 2021
- Optimism in Ohio February 20, 2021
- Jeff’s 60th Birthday November 23, 2020
- 2020 US Election October 10, 2020
- Covid-19 on Death Row August 6, 2020
- Excessive and Inhuman July 31, 2020
- Jurisdiction Ruling: a Reassuring Footnote June 9, 2020
-
Labels:
2015 Amber Garrett capital punishment Chillicothe Correctional Institution criminal justice death penalty death row Eric Horn execution drugs executions Governor John Kasich 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 Peggy Garrett prosecutorial misconduct prosecutor misconduct prosecutors subject-matter jurisdiction suppressed evidence Supreme Court of Ohio Terry Collins torture United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit USA US Supreme Court wrongful conviction wrongful convictions
We also support:
Translate this page
Tag Archives: Ohio Supreme Court
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
Scope for Pitfalls Ahead
2018 has brought Jeffrey Wogenstahl a huge breakthrough – a federal court decision that spelled out the travesty that was his trial. As Jeff knows only too well, however, there is scope for pitfalls ahead. If he needed any proof … 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
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
Oral Argument Information
The Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s case about jurisdiction on Tuesday morning next week (Tuesday, April 4, 2017). The session will be held at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus. The … Continue reading
The Dilemma of the Ohio Supreme Court
The Ohio Supreme Court has denied* Jeff’s motion to remand his case to the trial court. This motion had asked the court to allow all Jeff’s legal challenges to be combined into one. The court has also declined to accept … 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
Not Indicative of a Murderer
One of the filings from Jeffrey Wogenstahl that is now before the Ohio Supreme Court supports his claim of innocence. This claim was dismissed by the Hamilton County Court of Appeals last December, a decision which has been roundly criticized for … 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