NEWS (7/​21/​21) — Ohio: The Ohio Supreme Court has vacat­ed the con­vic­tion and death sen­tence for George Brinkman, find­ing that he had not been advised of crit­i­cal con­sti­tu­tion­al rights when he entered a guilty plea in his 2018 cap­i­tal tri­al and that his plea was there­fore invalid. The jus­tices vacat­ed Brinkman’s plea and returned his case to the Cuyahoga County court to con­duct a new trial. 

On November 5, 2018, Brinkman indi­cat­ed to the court that he intend­ed to plead guilty to cap­i­tal mur­der and waive his right to a jury at both the tri­al and sen­tenc­ing phas­es of his death penal­ty tri­al. However, while ques­tion­ing Brinkman to deter­mine whether his guilty plea was know­ing, vol­un­tary, and intel­li­gent, the tri­al court failed to inform him that, in plead­ing guilty, he would be waiv­ing his con­sti­tu­tion­al rights to con­front wit­ness­es against him and to require the state to prove beyond a rea­son­able doubt his guilt of every ele­ment of each charged offense. After this defec­tive waiv­er col­lo­quy, Brinkman plead­ed guilty and the court accept­ed his plea. Four days lat­er — after the state had pre­sent­ed evi­dence of Brinkman’s guilt — the court con­duct­ed a sec­ond waiv­er col­lo­quy at which it ful­ly advised Brinkman of his rights but did not ask him whether he still wished to plead guilty.

It is clear from the record that the tri­al court did not advise Brinkman at the time that he entered his plea that by plead­ing guilty he was waiv­ing his rights to con­front the wit­ness­es against him and to have the state prove his guilt beyond a rea­son­able doubt,” the court wrote. Consequently, Brinkman did not have a full under­stand­ing’ that by plead­ing guilty, he would waive those two constitutional rights.” 

The jus­tices sharply crit­i­cized the tri­al court and coun­sel for both par­ties for fail[ing] to adhere to the lev­el of dili­gence expect­ed in, and essen­tial to, our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. The tri­al court failed to strict­ly com­ply with the require­ments for a valid plea col­lo­quy” under Ohio pro­ce­dur­al law, the court wrote, and nei­ther the pros­e­cu­tor nor defense coun­sel brought the omit­ted con­sti­tu­tion­al rights to the court’s atten­tion at the time of the ini­tial plea col­lo­quy. … This inat­ten­tion,” the jus­tices said, is imper­mis­si­ble, espe­cial­ly in a case such as this in which a death sen­tence is on the line.”