The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Defendants (D), Isaac, Hughes, and Bell claimed that their constitutional rights were violated at their respective homicide trials because the State was not required to disprove their claim of self-defense. None of the Ds challenged the constitutionality of the self-defense instruction at trial, and this was a violation of Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, which requires contemporaneous objections to jury instructions. D filed a federal habeas proceeding to litigate the matter.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.