Slight variation from the customary format.  The USSC is closed for the summer, and while there were a couple of decisions from the Ohio Supreme Court on allied offenses, they merit a separate post.  Plus, the 8th District didn’t hand down anything earthshaking last week.  So we’ll get right to the courts of appeals summary, with the 8th District cases thrown in afterwards.  Tomorrow I’ll look at the two allied offense decisions, and the rest of the week we’ll spend discussing the US Supreme Court decisions from the past term. (keep reading…)

Imagine a defense lawyer getting up in opening statement at a trial and telling the jury:

Ladies and gentlemen, after carefully reviewing all the evidence in this case, I’ve concluded that my client has no meritorious defenses.  There are a couple of arguments I possibly could make, but they’d be frivolous.  I’ll mention them to you, and if my client wants to argue them further, that’s up to him.  You give them whatever consideration you deem appropriate.

And with that, the lawyer picks up his briefcase and walks out of the courtroom.

Well, that’s the trial equivalent to an Anders brief.

(keep reading…)

It used to be that there was nothing more difficult to defend than an allegation that the defendant had sexually abused a child.  I don’t know whether that’s changing, but in the past two weeks a jury verdict, a trial court’s decision, and three appellate opinions have certainly bucked that trend. (keep reading…)

…there is a speedy trial statute, and like Christmas, a reversal for violation of it comes but once a year.  Or so it seems.  Well, last week was the time of the season up here by the lake.  In State v. Byrd, the 8th District addressed a plethora of speedy trial issue, among them… (keep reading…)

 The court decided to make trial judges’ jobs easier this week, telling them what they need to do in order to impose restitution, charge a jury on a lesser offense, or decide whether to accept a plea.  Plus, a big reversal on speedy trial, which we’ll talk about tomorrow, and a reversal on a child sex case, which we’ll discuss on Thursday. (keep reading…)

The US Supreme Court finished off its term with the big affirmative action decision in Ricci v. Stefano.  In addition to its legal impact, the decision could have political consequences as well:  it overruled a 2nd District decision in which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had participated.  The Court’s ruling won’t make it easy for Republicans to argue that Sotomayor was wildly off-base in her ruling — the decision was 5-4, and Kennedy’s majority opinion stressed that the state of the law was “a difficult inquiry” and that the “holding today clarifies how Title VII applies” — but since that’s about the only stick the Republicans have, expect them to use it.  Next week, I’ll have my review of the Supreme Court term. 

A couple notable decisions from Columbus.  In Roe v. Planned Parenthood, the parents of a 14-year-old who’d obtained an abortion at the instance of a school teacher who’d gotten her pregnant sued the clinic and sought all medical records, with patient information redacted, of minors who’d had abortions.  The court rejected the request, holding that a litigant has no right to seek medical records of nonparties in a private lawsuit. 

In State v. Trimble, the defendant had killed his girlfriend and her 7-year-old son, then took a hostage and killed her when the SWAT team cornered him.  At Trimble’s capital trial, the prosecution introduced 19 firearms that had been found in his home, with an ATF expert identifying each one; the judge subsequently permitted the firearms to be in the jury room during deliberations in the guilt phase.  The court finds this to be error, but an inconsequential one; the firearms were excluded during the penalty phase, by which time I’m sure the jury forgot all about them.  It says here that the Federal court’s going to kick that out on habeas.

On to the courts of appeals… (keep reading…)

Last week, I discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, in which the Court held that reports of laboratory tests were “testimonial” under Crawford v. Washington, and could not be submitted at trial without the live testimony of the person who conducted the test.  I’d noted that the Ohio Supreme Court had come to the opposite conclusion last year in State v. Crager.  The Ohio Public Defenders Office sought a writ of certiorari in Crager, and any lingering doubts as to the continued vitality of that decision were put to rest by an entry in the US Supreme Court’s docket in that case on Monday: 

Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ____ (2009).

On that same day, the Supreme Court also granted cert in another case involving the same subject, and the change in the composition of the Court when it hears that case next year gives some observers concerns about the continued vitality of Melendez-Diaz. (keep reading…)

So I’m at the market the other day, and I run into one of my buddies from the PD’s office.  “What’s going on?” he asks.

“Oh, I’m upset,” I pouted.  “I was thinking of retiring from the practice of law to become a high school principal, but now the Supreme Court comes along and says I can’t strip-search 13-year-old girls.”

He nodded.  “Trying that line out for your blog?”

“Yep,” I confessed.  “What do you think?”

He mulled it over for a moment.  “It works,” he finally agreed. (keep reading…)