Three hours after I post the Case Update saying that there’s nothing new from the US Supreme Court, they come down with a trio of major criminal decisions.  They’re mostly pertinent to those who handle Federal criminal cases, but there’s some overlap into state law.  I’ll tackle the biggie today, and the other two later this week.  (keep reading…)

Nothing from the gang in DC or Columbus this past week.  In fact, the future pickings are pretty slim, too:  the US Supreme Court isn’t going to have any more oral arguments this year, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s slate for Tuesday and Wednesday features three disciplinary cases, three tax cases, and two PUCO cases.  The high-low in the criminal arena is a death penalty case out of Cuyahoga County, and a case on the constitutionality of Columbus’ dog-barking ordinance.  Anyway, on to the courts of appeals… (keep reading…)

Yesterday I had lunch with Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason.  Well, me and about thirty other members of the Criminal Section of the Cleveland Bar Association.  Mr. Mason had dropped by to chat us up about the numerous innovations the courts and the prosecutor’s office were making ensure that the machinery of the justice system functioned more smoothly.

The first part of the talk was devoted to identifying all the chefs who were concocting this brew, culminating in the display on the overhead of an organizational chart which seemed only slightly less complicated than the Pentagon’s.  I suppose I should have been reassured by the fact that no fewer than twenty separate committees are charged with the task of analyzing and reporting on what goes on, and recommending further changes, but the only thing it brought to mind was the old observation that a committee is an alleyway down which ideas are lured to be strangled.  (keep reading…)

Way back in 1880, the US Supreme Court held that a state denied a black defendant equal protection of the law by putting him on trial before a jury from which blacks had been intentionally excluded.  That case presented a fairly simple situation:  the law of the state — West Virginia, in that case — specifically provided that blacks couldn’t serve on juries.  In 1965, the Court was confronted with a different situation:  while the law permitted blacks to serve on juries, the prosecutor had used his peremptory challenges to remove all of them. 

That presented a rather different situation, given that peremptories have historically been allowed for any reason whatsoever.  The Court upheld the conviction, saying that the defendant had to show a systematic county-wide pattern of bias in order to make a successful challenge of discrimination. 

Twenty years of experience showed that that was impossible, and in 1986 the Court reversed direction in Batson v. Kentucky, holding that discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges was unlawful as well.  This past Tuesday, it had oral argument on another case involving that issue, in what many — the prosecutor especially — had hailed as the Louisiana version of the OJ Simpson case.  (keep reading…)

I usually only do one post a day  (and if you’re just checking in, there’s another down below), but the urgency of the situation demands an exception here.  If you’re still searching for that special gift for a lawyer acquaintance or family member, you can’t do better than the — wait for it — Sandra Day O’Connor Bobblehead Doll.  Time runs out on Saturday.  Be the first on your block.  Must be 18 to enter.  Void where prohibited by law.  Your mileage may vary.

And speaking of Christmas, the Bush administration has apparently concluded that it can improve its dismal approval ratings by taking on Santa Claus:

America’s top doc told the Herald yesterday that Santa Claus should slim down, in the latest blow struck in a global politically correct crusade against the jolly fat man.

“It is really important that the people who kids look up to as role models are in good shape, eating well and getting exercise. It is absolutely critical,” acting U.S. Surgeon General Rear Adm. Steven K. Galson said in an interview after a presentation on obesity at the Boston Children’s Museum.

Where’s the love?

Shop ’til you drop, and I’ll see you tomorrow.

Manuel Rodriguez was charged with raping and kidnapping his 11-year-old stepdaughter.  The first time the case was tried, the judge declared a mistrial because he believed that improper evidence had come in.  Rodriguez was convicted of both counts in the second trial.

Last week, in State v. Rodriguez, the 8th District determined that the judge never should have declared a mistrial the first time around.  That meant that double jeopardy barred his retrial, and his conviction was vacated and he was discharged.  (keep reading…)

Lots of stuff the past week or so… 

1st District rejects contention that sexual predator law violates Blakely, holds that while law requires judicial findings, designation is “remedial” and therefore doesn’t implicate 6th Amendment… 2nd District rules that RC 2929.22, which specifies when maximum sentence can be imposed for misdemeanors, violates Blakely, but holds that defendant waived issue by not raising it at sentencing…  6th District holds that even if probation revocation proceedings were instituted before probation period terminated, court lost jurisdiction to impose sentence for violation once period expired, unless it extended period before expiration…

8th District reverses grant of motion to suppress where police began search before warrant arrived; since warrant was valid, evidence could come in under inevitable discovery doctrine… 1st District also holds that court can’t order probation department to calculate restitution, must hold hearing on issue… 5th District holds that judge may not impose reduced sentence upon violation of judicial release… 8th District holds that 1-year firearm spec isn’t lesser-included offense of 3-year spec, defendant not entitled to instruction on it as a lesser offense…

Speaking of lesser-included offenses, 3rd District holds that counsel’s failure to request charge on one is matter of trial strategy, not subject to review for ineffective assistance of counsel claim… 9th District holds that, on no contest plea to felony theft offense, court can’t determine stolen property was a lesser amount and reduce charge to misdemeanor…  

Call us the minute you get out.  From the headnotes of the 1st District’s decision last week in State v. Walker: 

When a defendant convicted of rape has been ordered under R.C. 2950.031 not to reside within 1000 feet of any school premises, his argument that the restriction violates his constitutional  rights is not ripe for appellate review because of the defendant’s incarceration for a 24-year term.

The gang in Columbus didn’t turn out anything last week, apparently still working through a diet of turkey sandwiches, turkey loaf, turkey pot pie, and the other ingenious ways that the repast of the previous week can be repackaged.  The big boys down in DC heard oral argument Wednesday on a case involving the intriguing issue of “whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts a Maine state law meant to block the delivery of tobacco purchased over the Internet to teenagers.”  Think I’ll wait ’til it comes out on video.

Fortunately, our appellate judges more than made up for the slack.  In fact, there’s so much good stuff out there that I’m going to run through the civil cases today, and the criminal ones tomorrow.  (keep reading…)