Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Friday roundup – Go west
  • Jurors with disabilities
  • A new look at sentencing?
  • What’s Up in the 8th
  • Case Update
  • Friday Roundup
  • Guns, guns, guns
  • Solving Miranda
  • What’s up in the 8th
  • Case Update


  • Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006


  • A little bit of this and that

    October 19th, 2007

    Interesting postscript to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Geeslin, which I discussed on Wednesday.  That was the case involving the due process ramifications of destruction of evidence by the police.  The seminal case on that subject was the US Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Youngblood.  Youngblood had been convicted of raping a ten-year-old boy back in 1983, and the swabs taken by the hospital were inconclusive.  The police had taken other samples, though, but failed to refrigerate them, and they were lost.  An expert testified at trial that the lost samples could have exonerated the defendant, and the Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to preserve them was a due process violation. 

    Not so fast, said the Supremes in DC, or at least six of them.  They noted that since there was no way of knowing what the test results would have been, the lost evidence was not “materially exculpatory,” but only “potentially useful,” and thus it was up to the defendant to prove that the police had destroyed the evidence in bad faith.  Youngblood’s conviction was reinstated, and he went off to serve seven years in prison.  By 2000, DNA technology had improved substantially, and the degraded evidence was retested.  Turns out that Youngblood was innocent after all.  The results were entered in to the convicted defender database, and a year later the actual rapist was identified and subsequently convicted.

    And here’s an interesting article on youthful offenders, which begins:

    In December, the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for children and young teenagers. The vote was 185 to 1, with the United States the lone dissenter.

    Indeed, the United States stands alone in the world in convicting young adolescents as adults and sentencing them to live out their lives in prison. According to a new report, there are 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at 13 or 14.

    I know there are kids who do terrible things, but that “lone dissenter” part kinda struck me.

    On the other hand, it’s good to know that we’re not locking everybody up.  The guys over at Inside Opinions:  Legal Blogs pointed me to an article in Slate, which notes that the biggest group of lawbreakers in the country isn’t the Mafia or the Bloods or the Crips, it’s the Amish.  The article recounts in fascinating detail the amount of law violation that we openly tolerate, and explores some reasons why.  It’s a lengthy article, but the link at Inside Opinions above gives a good synopsis of the article, and if you want to read more, you know how to find it.

    Finally, courtesy of Professor Berman over at the Sentencing Law & Policy Blog comes a story about a prosecutor’s office which decided that the defendant was going to be locked up for too long, so they dismissed some of the charges on which they’d gotten convictions.  In a child porn case, no less.  No, I’m not messing with your heads; it really happened.  As this article indicates, the defendant had been convicted of nine counts of possessing child pornography, each of which carried a ten-year sentence.  The prosecutor’s office stated that they believed forty years was a sufficient penalty for the crime, so they dismissed five counts.

    This is undoubtedly one of the signs of the End Times.

    Comments are closed.


    Search Posts




    Court Links

    Cuyahoga County
    Court of Appeals
    General Division
    Domestic Relations
    Juvenile
    Probate

    Ohio Courts
    Supreme Court
    Geauga Common Pleas
    Lake Common Pleas
    Lorain Common Pleas
    Summit Common Pleas

    Links to all Ohio Courts

    Ohio Revised Code

    Federal Courts
    Supreme Court
    6th Circuit
    Ohio Northern District
    Ohio Southern District



    Law Blogs

    Sentencing Law & Policy
    Volokh Conspiracy
    CrimLaw
    Grits for Breakfast
    Concurring Opinions
    Simple Justice
    A Public Defender
    Defending People
    CrimProf Blog
    How Appealing
    Lowering the Bar
    Crime and Consequences
    Drug War Rant
    Snitching Blog
    Overlawyered
    Balkinization
    Legal Blogwatch
    ScotusBlog

    Ohio Law blogs

    Jeff Gamso's Blog
    Cleveland Law Library
    6th Circuit - Criminal
    6th Circuit - General
    Bullseye Blog (PI law)
    Ohio Family Law Blog
    Ohio Employment Law Blog
    Ohio Practical Business Law
    Ohio Environmental Law Blog
    Other Ohio law blogs


    Criminal Defense Bars

    Ohio (OACDL)
    Cuyahoga County (CCDLA)
    National (NACDL)


    Legal Discussion Forum

    Attorneys Forum - Legal Help and Law Discussion Forums.


    Blogfinder

    Law Blog Metrics



    lawyer blogs