Last week I wrote about a case in which a trial judge in a criminal case had ordered the defendant to produce expert witness reports and the experts themselves at a pretrial hearing, so that the state could examine them.  The defendant filed a writ of prohibition with the 6th District, arguing that the judge’s ruling went beyond what Rule 16 — the criminal discovery rule — provided, especially given that the state’s right of discovery from the defendant was conditioned on the defendant first requesting discovery from the state, and he’d never done so.  The 6th District kicked the case out, holding that the defendant had an adequate remedy by way of appeal.

Up here in Cuyahoga County, a decision by a trial judge in a capital case has put the shoe on the other foot.  (keep reading…)

The good…  The 8th district’s decision last week in State v. Lee.  Lee was driving a car that got stopped at a traffic checkpoint where “cars would be randomly selected, and directed to a designated location for further investigation.”  Lee never made it to the designated location; as soon as the officers approached, they smelled PCP.  Their suspicions of drug activity were confirmed when Lee’s passenger spat out a bag containing crack cocaine.  A search of the car turned up a bag of marijuana, and Lee was charged with transporting marijuana in a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor.

The arresting officer warned Lee to ‘fess up to any other drugs he might have before they got to the jail, because bringing them into a detention facility was a felony.  This apparently took a while to sink in, because Lee waited until he was being booked to tell the officer that “I got weed on me,” specifically, four bags of the stuff.  (keep reading…)

Perhaps the best indication of the fracturing of the American family is that when we talk about court-ordered visitation, the discussion is no longer limited to parents.  By the time the US Supreme Court first considered the constitutionality of statutes permitting non-parent visitation in 2000, in Troxel v. Granville, all fifty states had them.  And it wasn’t just grandparents or other relatives; the Washington law that the Court considered allowed “any person” to file a petition asking for visitation.

The Court struck that down as a violation of a parent’s fundamental rights, which it properly deemed to include determining who got to see the child and how often.  The Court held that this didn’t mean that visitation could never be granted to a non-parent, simply that the statute in question was too broad, especially in failing to give any consideration to the parent’s wishes.  (keep reading…)

Nothing of note out of Washington, DC, and only some case announcements out of Columbus.  There’d been a decision out of the Ohio Supreme Court a week earlier that I’d promised to do a post on, but never got around to it, so here it is:  normally, the rule is that a dismissal without prejudice isn’t a final appealable order (because you can always refile), but in State v. Craig the Court holds that doesn’t apply to the dismissal of an indictment.  That sends the case, involving a child rape allegation, back to the trial court, which had dismissed it, without prejudice, because the prosecutor was 45 minutes late in appearing for trial.  

At least the courts of appeals were busy…

(keep reading…)

Insight and remorse being two items in short supply among the prison population, it’s unlikely that there are a large number of inmates whiling away their days of incarceration saying, “I shoulda listened to my lawyer.”  One of them most certainly is not Maxwell Hoffman.

Hoffman was charged with capital murder in Idaho, and the state offered him a deal:  plead out to first degree murder and take a life sentence.  Hoffman’s attorney, though, persuaded Hoffman to reject the deal, telling him that Idaho’s death penalty would be declared unconstitutional in another then-pending case.  Hoffman took the advice, went to trial, lost, and was sentenced to death.  Oh, and that other then-pending case?  Ooops.  Turns out the lawyer was wrong:  the death penalty was upheld.  (keep reading…)

In 1998, Curtis Simpkins pled guilty to two counts of rape, and was sentenced to eight years in prison.  One problem:  the trial court forgot to inform him at sentencing, or to include in the journal entry, that he would be subject to post-release controls.  The prosecutor’s office ultimately caught the error, and filed a motion for resentencing.  And so Curtis Simpkins was brought back before the trial court and properly resentenced, so that upon his release from prison, he would have to begin serving five years of post-release control.

His release from prison, it should be noted, was five days later.  (keep reading…)

I’ve spent the last couple of weeks highlighting some bad court decisions, so I though I’d make up for it by turning the spotlight on some good news for a change.    (keep reading…)

It’s not easy being a judge.  Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended Mason Municipal Judge George Parker for no fewer than 51 separate infractions, among others, that he ”directed intemperate and degrading remarks toward parties and attorneys; attempted to coerce prosecutors, defense attorneys and criminal defendants into plea agreements; and used his judicial powers to humiliate courtroom participants.”  The thought running through my head while reading the decision was Gosh, you mean they’re not allowed to do that?  Parker had defended the case on the grounds that he had narcissistic personality disorder, and if I didn’t want to practice law anymore, I’d probably say something to the effect that that’s an occupational hazard of being a judge.  But I do, so I won’t.  And then on top of the decision on Parker comes news from Virginia  about the removal of a judge who had decided a visitation issue by flipping a coin.

In truth, sometime I think I’d choose a coin flip, rather than subject myself to the whims of some judges.  That certainly would’ve been the smart move with the judges involved in the case of Browning v. Jennings, a decision out of the 6th District last week.  (keep reading…)

Nothing out of the US Supreme Court this past week, but on Friday the judges are to have a conference on District of Columbia v. Heller, the case in which a Federal court tossed out the District’s gun ban on 2nd Amendment grounds.  If it accepts the case, and a companion one on the same issue, it would be the biggest gun rights decision ever.  Scotusblog has background and analysis of the issue here. 

Closer to home, the Robed Ones in Columbus didn’t come up with anything breathtaking either, other than a reversal of a dismissal of an appeal of a dismissal of an indictment, which I’ll talk about later this week.  Although you may want to check out this decision, which goes into some detail on the residency requirements for personal jurisdiction; it involves a defendant who fled to Canada to avoid, among other things, paying his attorneys.  On to the courts of appeals… (keep reading…)

Nice heading, huh?  Every now and then, I get lazy and come up with a post just by surfing the ‘net and finding stuff that might be relevant or interesting to my legions of faithful readers.  Yeah, yeah, I know, you’d rather have pictures of nekkid women.  Maybe next week.  (keep reading…)