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 »

×

Time off for good behavior

The biggest case of note out of the Ohio Supreme Court this week was an affirmance of the 5th District's decision last year holding that Ohio could constitutionally punish consensual sex between a stepparent and an adult stepchild, in State v. Woody Allen, oops, State v. LoweI'd done a post on the case when it was argued before the Court back in October, noting that a reversal was, um, unlikely; my exact words were that "there’s as much chance of our Supreme Court putting its stamp of approval on stepparents messing around with their stepchildren, even adult ones, as there is of the state legislature designating August as Oral Sex Month." 

Turns out I was right on the money as to not only the outcome, but the Court's reasoning.  I'd suggested that the only reason the court took the case was to clean up the appellate court's decision,  which had spent a lot of time talking about there not being a right to consensual sex, even with an adult stepdaughter -- a rationale that might run afoul of the US Supreme Court's holding in Lawrence v. Texas that there's a liberty interest in consensual adult sexual relations.  I'd suggested that the Supreme Court would instead focus on the state interest of preserving the family unit in prohibiting stepparent/stepchild relations, and in their 6-1 decision the other day, that's exactly what they did.

So I guess I'll have to type the rest of this post with one hand, having broken my other arm patting myself on the back.  Hey, this is the guy who said there was no way Al Gore would lose Tennessee in the 2000 election, and that the Pittsburgh Steelers were a lock to repeat as Super Bowl champions, so pardon me while I revel in the rarity about having been right about something.

And I'm going to reward myself for this by taking the rest of the day off from writing serious stuff.  We'll start by saluting the law firm of Low, Ball & Lynch.  No, I'm not making that up; the firm's site can be found here.  They do insurance defense work.  Quelle surprise.  I don't want to even think about what Payne & Fears, LLP specialize in. 

If they specialize in trial work, they'd best be clean-shaven, at least according to the jury consultant who was interviewed for this article.  While no facial hair is best of all, if you're unwilling to dispense with it altogether, keep in mind there's a heirarchy at work:  beards are best, mustaches are in the middle, and "goatees are most likely to discredit a lawyer."  Actually, the best part of the article was the comments below it, particularly this one: 

In his later made for TV movies in he late 80’s and early ’90s, Raymond Burr as Perry Mason had a Beard/VanDyke thing going and he remained undefeated. But that might also have had something to do with his opposing prosecutors seeming never to have heard of the phrase, “I object!”, when he would accuse somebody of the heinous crime while they were on the witness stand.

Oh, and speaking of Al Gore, which we were several paragraphs back, it appears he's suffered yet another blow at the hands of the Supreme Court.

I'm going to be on vacation next week, so I'll put some stuff together over the weekend to keep you minimally entertained/informed while I'm gone.  I'll be back, tanned, rested, and ready, a week from Monday.

Search

Recent Entries

  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.
  • May 30, 2017
    Case Update
    One searches SCOTUSblog in vain for decisions which would be of interest to the uncounted hordes of this blog's regular readers; one of the Court's opinions last week deals with the Hague Service Convention's rules on international service by mail,...
  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases