Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

July 23, 2006

Well, this should be fun...

A couple of weeks ago Gov. Bob "Single Digit Approval Ratings" Taft signed a bill adding Sections 2152.202 and 2925.511 to the Revised Code, authorizing a court in a drug case (adult or juvenile) to order the offender to reimburse the state for the costs of the test which determined the substance was indeed narcotics. 

What's going to be fun is that the statute requires the court to hold a hearing on the matter.  How's the court going to determine what an individual test cost?  I gotta figure it's going to need a whole lot of information, like the cost of the equipment that's used in testing, how many tests they're used for, how long they'll last, what the salaries are for the people who do the tests...  and of course, you're going to have subpoena a whole boatload of records on that.  I can just imagine a hearing like that lasting for days.  What's more, the law specifies it's only for drug abuse offenders, not for drug trafficking offenses, and I'm not sure what sense that makes. 

Actually, I'm not sure what sense any of this makes.  There's been an apparent determination over the past few years that the cost of prosecuting offenders should be shifted to the offenders themselves.  While that has some superficial logic, there's also a penny-wise/pound-foolish aspect to it as well.  Few attorneys, let alone defendants, realize that court costs can easily run into  thousands of dollars, and current law allows the state to automatically deduct any costs due from money paid to an inmate, or even received from his family.  I talked to one client this week, who told me that he gets $17 a month from working in the prison laundry.  That $17 doesn't go into his commissary fund, it goes to the state to pay for the costs of prosecuting him.

The vast majority of the people who are sentenced to prison will eventually be released, and state policy seems to be to ensure that when they do, they'll be broke.  Given the obstacles already faced by an ex-con, this doesn't seem to be the most sensible way of reducing an already-high rate of recidivism.

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture