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 »

×

Friday Roundup

antonin-scalia-weird-hat.jpg

From the Department of Silly Walks.  That's Antonin Scalia, no less, sporting the chapeau that allowed him to win the Grand Prize for Goofiest Hat at the Edgerton, MN, county fair last summer.  Actually, it's the headgear he chose to wear at the presidential inauguration last week.  The hat was a replica of that worn in the famous portrait of Thomas More, who served as Chancellor of England and was condemned to death for refusing to recognize King Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon.  More's last words were, "I am the king's good servant, but God's first," and Scalia's choice of this particular headgear led to all manner of speculation as to whether he was making a political statement rather than a fashion one.   As one scribe put it,

Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.

Well, yeah, but then again, maybe sometimes a goofy hat is just a goofy hat.

Onward with the arts.  Scalia's major accomplishment, of course, is the acceptance of originalism as a desired means of constitutional interpretation.  Perhaps the desired means:  in DC v. Heller, the arguments of both the majority and the dissent focused on what the Framers meant when they adopted the 2nd Amendment, rather than what that might have to do in a time which allows individuals to use weapons with destructive capabilities that couldn't have been imagined in 1790.  The way things might turn out, in the near future Scalia and his doctrinal brethren might have to try to grapple with whether the Framers would have intended the 1st Amendment to cover the right of porn producers not to have the performers wear condoms.

Lost in the hullabaloo over the election of a president, 34 senators, and 435 congresscritters last November was passage of Measure B in Los Angeles.  Pushed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, it requires that anyone producing a porn movie in Los Angeles -- and L.A. is the porn capital of the world, employing about 10,000 people there -- has to ensure that male performers wear condoms during the filmed sex acts.

The law is idiotic, of course.  It's not so much Big Brother, as Creepy Little Brother:  you mean we're going to pay tax dollars to have public employees drop in on porn sets and watch sex scenes?  Maybe have a special unit, called the Prophylactic Police?

Of course, arguing the validity of the law gets you only so far in court, since you're wandering around in the Rational Basis desert.  You need to bring a constitutional right into the mix, which will get you into Strict Scrutiny Land.  And lo and behold, here comes the 1st Amendment, ready to do our bidding.  The theory is something like "forced expression," that is, that you're being forced to produce porn movies with the actors wearing condoms, and that this is thus a content-based restriction that's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  Or something like that.  This guy has a long article explaining the intricacies of the argument, and I actually managed to get through the whole thing without giggling.

Small town, U.S.A.  At the risk of making it seem like Beavis and Butthead co-authored today's post, I'll note that yet another sex case brings up constitutional issues.  Seems that Kennebunk, Maine, has taken up the unlikely role of the Soddom and Gomorrha of the frozen Northeast.  According to authorities, Alexis Wright was actually using her Zumba Dance Studio as a front for prostitution, with the help of Mark Strong.  This earned the two indictments on a combined 165 counts.  Forty-six of them related to Strong videotaping Wright having sex with the customers, without the customers' knowledge, under a criminal statute prohibiting invasion of privacy.

Now, if your first thought upon reading that last sentence was, "who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in paying to have sex in a dance studio?" you too can be a judge, because that's what the judge in Strong and Wright's case thought about.  It's more complicated than that, of course, as you know from 4th Amendment law:  the issue is whether the person has a subjective expectation of privacy which the public views as objectively reasonable.  But not too complicated; the judge decided that whatever expectation the johns had, society wasn't willing to regard that as reasonable, and tossed those counts.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 28, 2016
    Some you win, some you lose, and sometimes you do both
    The Supreme Court's decision in State v. Jones
  • July 26, 2016
    What's Up in the 8th
    Anders briefs
  • July 25, 2016
    Case Update
    The rape shield statute and child sex offenses, when does a judge have to tell a defendant that sentences can be run consecutively, "mandatory" probation, and more
  • July 21, 2016
    Going home
    Tom Wolfe was wrong
  • July 18, 2016
    What's up in the 8th
    The Holy Grail for attorneys representing felony defendants here in Cuyahoga County is the misdemeanor plea. So much of criminal representation involves simple risk/reward analysis, and rarely does that come down on the side of eschewing a misdemeanor and instead...
  • July 15, 2016
    Friday roundup
    The trial tax, haikus, and repaying the costs of counsel
  • July 12, 2016
    Supreme Court Recap - 2015 Term
    No 8th District summary today; there were only three criminal decisions last week. Instead, it's time for the annual wrap-up of SCOTUS decisions for the 2015 term. The link is to the case in SCOTUSblog, where you can find a...
  • July 11, 2016
    Catching up with SCOTUS
    A number of Supreme Court justices have turned out quite differently than the presidents who appointed them counted on. Felix Frankfurter, picked by FDR, became much more conservative once on the Court. (He's the one who turned down Ruth Bader...
  • July 8, 2016
    Bail reform
    The problem with relying on data
  • July 7, 2016
    Exploding meth labs and RC 2933.33
    Ohio law says the police can search a house without a warrant if they believe there's a meth lab on the premises. Here's where I tell you why that's so bogus.