Back in October, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in FCC v. Fox, concerning the FCC’s “fleeting expletives” policy; I discussed the lower court’s decision here, and the oral argument here.  The Court hasn’t ruled on the case yet, but when it does, it will also affect the FCC’s ruling in the famous Janet Jackson incident, which I discussed below:

Just like people of our generation remember where they were the day John Kennedy was shot, and of the generation prior to that remembered where they were when Pearl Harbor was bombed, the current generations will no doubt remember where they were on September 11, 2001, and on February 1, 2004.

What’s that? February 1, 2004? Yes, that was the date of the infamous Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, featuring Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, the horrible denouement of which is recounted in vivid detail in the 3rd Circuit’s opinion the other day in CBS Corp. v. Federal Communications Comm.: (keep reading…)

Well, here’s the deal, gang.  I’ve got briefs due in the Supreme Court and the 8th District next Friday, and despite my hopes to the contrary, it doesn’t look like they’re going to write themselves.  (If you’re waiting for me to do one of those self-help books, like “Eight Tips from Highly Organized and Successful People,” keep waiting.  Mine would probably be entitled, “If It Weren’t for the Last Minute, I Wouldn’t Get Anything Done.”)

So I’m only going to have time to do a couple of posts next week, if that.  I may do a case update on Monday, or the 8th District roundup on Tuesday, but that depends on what happens there:  right now, the 8th District is showing only five new decisions, and the only case announcement on the Supreme Court site is the dog-bites-man “Attorney Suspended from Practice.”  The US Supreme Court resumes on Monday after the Easter Break, so maybe they’ll come up with something I can write about.  (Speaking of Easter, here’s Reason No. 17 that I’m going to Hell:  on Monday, somebody asked me how my holiday had been, and I had to think about it before I realized what he was talking about.  Not the most religiously observant person… I’m hoping I’m consigned to something no worse than Dante’s Fifth Circle, because things get pretty dicy below that:  the Infernal Furies show up in the 6th, and in the 8th, you’re forced to spend eternity watching an endless loop of Adam Sandler movies.)

I realized the other day that I’ve got a blogiversary coming up:  On May 14, I’ll have been doing this for exactly three years.  (My very first post amply foreshadowed the quick wit and clever insights I was bringing to the legal analysis table .)  So I’m going to do what Rush Limbaugh does when he goes on vacation.  No, silly, I’m not going to feed my oxycodone habit;  I’m going to recycle some of my previous posts.   One of them will even feature Janet Jackson’s breast.  Another reason to choose life.

And if something notable in the legal world does happen, I’ll be all over it like a cheap suit, which those who have seen my wardrobe would attest is a particularly apt metaphor.

Catch you then.

The lead opinion in State v. Ollison from the 8th District last week doesn’t give any clue that the case is out of the ordinary.  Ollison and his girlfriend, Barbara Williams, lived in a trailer in Cleveland.  They were acquainted with Moore, and let him sleep in a car on the property.  The relationship with Moore grew contentious — according to Ollison and Williams, Moore broke into the trailer, set Ollison’s truck on fire, and threatened them and shouted obscenities whenever he came by.  One day he did that, and Ollison had had enough, and got his shotgun.  Moore started walking away, but Ollison fired and hit him in the back of his legs. 

In a bench trial, the judge found Ollison guilty of the lesser offense of aggravated assault, and gave him the minimum six month sentence, plus the three years for the gun spec.  Ollison argued on appeal that he should have been found guilty of negligent assault, the court properly noted that there wasn’t anything negligent about what he did, and that, as they say, is that.

And then Judge Gallagher does a Paul Harvey imitation in his concurrence, and gives us “the rest of the story.” (keep reading…)

When is a sentence not a sentence?  How does a court overrule a case without doing so?  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  The Ohio Supreme Court provided answers to two of these metaphysical conundrums last week; sadly, the chicken/egg one, which has always bedeviled me, was not one of them.  In doing so, the court re-examined two issues which have bedeviled them. (keep reading…)

Eric “Big Willie” Wilson reacted the way one might expect a drug dealer who’s just been robbed to react:  he got out of his car and chased James Yhonquea, the guy who’d robbed him, down the street.  The two exchanged gunfire before Wilson caught up with Yongquea, shot him in the back, and retrieved his drugs.  Yongquea lived; unfortunately, a 12-year-old who’d been caught in the crossfire did not, and last week the 8th affirmed Wilson’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter, despite the fact that it was Yongquea’s shot which took the girl’s life.  (keep reading…)

A light week.  Nothing notable from DC.  The Columbus Seven handed down a couple of significant decisions, which we’ll talk about on Wednesday.  The weekly spate of disciplinary cases features this one, in which the panel recommended suspension for six months, the board upped that to two years with one stayed, and the Supreme Court says that’s not enough and imposes an indefinite suspension.  Chief among the lawyer’s sins was Abe Lincoln’s maxim about representing oneself:  the lawyer did just that in his divorce case.  The court found disciplinary violations from the attorney stopping payment on a check for an expert witness’ deposition, and engaging in various legal shenanigans to avoid paying child support.  Of course, it didn’t help that the lawyer also did things like hold himself out as the partner of a lawyer who’d died two years earlier, and accepting fees while he was already suspended.

Light week in the courts of appeals, too, which finds only 50-some decisions… (keep reading…)

If you needed to know a single fact to give you insight into the American character, it is that John Wayne was still the most popular actor in this country twenty years after his death. (keep reading…)

The cops did a pretty thorough job taking down Eddie Coleman for trafficking drugs.  Each of the search warrant affidavits for the two houses Eddie used is 27 paragraphs long.  The detective spends the first seven reciting his qualifications, and then gets down to business:  there’s a “confidential reliable informant” who’s told him that Eddie is dealing, where he’s staying, and the car he’s driving:  A gold Cadillac Escalade with a particular license plate number.  The cops set up a controlled buy, and sure enough, along comes a black male driving a gold Cadillac Escalade with that license number.  The deal goes down, the detective does some more checking, including running the license plate, and it comes back to Coleman.

One problem:  it turns out the detective never saw that license plate on Coleman’s car, at least not before the search, which occurred on May 31, 2007.   The records of the car dealership show that Eddie had temporary tags on his car at that time, and didn’t pick up his plates until over a week later.  Last week, in State v. Coleman, the 8th District said that didn’t matter. (keep reading…)

If attorney malpractice insurance rates increase anytime soon, it won’t be because of the 8th District.  I’m not a stickler for rules, but it’s becoming increasingly clear, based on a couple of decisions last week, that the 8th isn’t, either.  (keep reading…)

Yep,  Marlon Brando’s “the horror… the horror…”  accurately encapsulates the 8th’s criminal decisions last week.  Fourteen criminal decisions, and the best defendants can muster is a sentence vacated so that the trial court can tell the defendant that post-release controls are discretionary, not mandatory.  The court was much more forgiving of civil attorneys who ignore the rules of procedure, a subject we’ll turn to tomorrow.  In the meantime, a survey of the wreckage… (keep reading…)