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 »

×

Upcoming Supreme Court Arguments

The crew down in Columbus is going to be busy this week, hearing oral arguments in nine cases.  One of them is on an appeal from a medical malpractice case in which the 1st District court of appeals reversed a defense verdict because of improper conduct of the defense lawyer, marking the third time in three years that this same court had reversed this same lawyer for this same thing.  (It later reversed yet another defense verdict by this lawyer on the same grounds.)  Sending a message, are we?  The court summarized the offending remarks thusly:

The trial court in a medical malpractice action erred by permitting defense counsel to make improper and inflammatory remarks to the jury during the trial to the effect that the minor plaintiff's "shameful" parents had manufactured her claim after seven years of researching the symptoms of meningitis and, with the help of plaintiffs' counsel, were able to "truck in 55 people and pay them $ 8,000 apiece" to say "something made up" to get a "$ 2,000,000 paycheck," and to "blow" the "good doctor" away and end her ability to practice medicine, and that the jury would condone "this type of conduct" by returning a verdict in the plaintiffs' favor

Oooh, where's the love?  You can read the case here

Another interesting case coming up for argument is one out of Cuyahoga County, where the court threw out a search based on non-compliance with the knock and announce rule.  The US Supreme Court has since ruled that the exclusionary rule shouldn't be applied to no-knock cases, so the chances of this one being affirmed are about as good as Jessica Simpson's chances of getting into MENSA.

Lastly, the Federal Sentencing Commission had hearings on Tuesday on the advisability of one of the most criticized provisions of Federal criminal law:  the disparate sentences for crack and powder cocaine.  Under that law, someone possessing 5,000 grams of powder cocaine -- about 12 pounds worth -- can get 10 years in prison.  Someone possessing only 50 grams of crack cocaine -- about the size of a candy bar -- is subject to the same penalty.  Ohio law also treats the two separately, although it has only a 5-1 difference instead of a 100-1.  For that reason, it's unlikely that Ohio law would be changed even if the Federal law was.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech