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 »

×

Odds and Ends

Catching up with some stuff...

Let's hope Judge Kline doesn't read this.  Last week I did a post on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Crager, where it upheld the admission of DNA testimony by an analyst, other than the one who'd performed the actual tests, against a Crawford challenge.  Central to the Court's holding was the belief that the integrity of BCI was such that who actually performed the test didn't matter, a view embodied by Judge Kline in his concurrence that "the prosecutor asked BCI for the DNA analysis through glasses of justice, not glasses of conviction."  Then there's this story from the Jacksonville Times-Union:

Only weeks before Chad Heins' murder trial in 1996, a Jacksonville prosecutor sent a memo asking a state crime lab supervisor to downplay findings that stray hairs found on the victim's body came from an unknown person.

"I need to structure your testimony carefully so as to convince the jury that the unknown hairs are insignificant," Assistant State Attorney Stephen Bledsoe wrote in a letter recently obtained by the Times-Union.

Heins spent 11 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence.  (Hat tip to CrimProf Blog.)

Truth in advertising.  The legal community was abuzz last year by this ad for a three-woman divorce firm in Chicago:

LawFirmAd650.jpg

Well, it turns out that the model for the picture on the left was none other than Senior Partner Corri D. Fetman, who also appeared in a photo spread in Playboy.  In fact, Ms. Fetman now writes a column for the magazine, entitled "Lawyer of Love," in which she expresses a view of marriage so jaundiced it makes the average divorce lawyer sound like Mr. Rogers.  Also, at the risk of being unchivalrous, a comparison of Ms. Fetman's picture for the Playboy column with the one on the firm's website confirms both the magic the magazine's photographers can work and the wisdom of the decision to focus the ad's picture on Ms. Fetman's more obvious assets.

Then again, that just might be my bitterness coming to the fore.  I'm seriously considering suing the firm for using my picture as the male model in the ad without my permission.

Search

Recent Entries

  • 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
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it