Ohio, ex rel. John Wells v. Jane M. Hanlin, Prosecutor, Jefferson County Prosecutor's Office, et al.

Question 1. Are the Duties Set Out in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its Progeny, “Clear Legal Duties” Enjoined Upon State Prosecuting Attorneys by United States Constitutional Law Expounded by the United States Supreme Court? Question 2. Is Mandamus a Proper Remedy to Compel State Prosecutors to Disclose Illegally Suppressed Brady Material where a State’s Constitution and Laws Provided the Remedy of Mandamus to Compel Government Officers, Officials, Agents, and Agencies, to Perform Acts Specifically Enjoined upon Them by Law, but Do Not Provide a Specific Remedy to Compel Disclosure of Brady Material? Question 3. Does the fact that two Motions to Compel disclosure of illegally Suppressed Brady Material, that have remained pending in the trial court for six years, may someday be finally decided and make available an appeal, constitute an adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of the law sufficient to preclude mandamus to compel a State Prosecutor to disclose Brady Material? Question 4. Does the state’s highest court’s refusal to intervene and refusal to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a State prosecutor to disclose illegally withheld Brady Material deprive the Petitioner of a constitutionally guaranteed remedy and Due Process of Law where the state trial court’s six-year refusal to rule on motions to compel disclosure of Brady Material renders the remedy of appeal unavailable? Question 5. Is it a violation of Due Process for the state’s highest court to fail or refuse to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a State prosecutor to disclose illegally suppressed Brady material despite the presentation of clear and convincing evidence proving that the state prosecutor illegally suppressed Brady material?