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 »

×

Zero tolerance follies

For those of us who remember the almost daily pronouncements by Administration officials in the run-up to the Iraq invasion of 2003 about the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's arsenal of WMD's, we may have been a bit non-plussed by the charges brought against the Boston Marathon bombers:  "unlawfully using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction."  Not to understate the horrors inflicted by the bombing, but Sarin, anthrax, suitcase nukes, that we can see.  Pressure cookers?  As Spencer Ackerman explains in Wired, though, using a "destructive device" qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction, and that's defined very broadly:  just about any old bomb, including a home-made one, will do. 

So I guess Kiera Wilmot can thank her lucky stars that she's at least not facing Federal prosecution for what could have been a high school science project gone wrong.

Wilmot, a 16-year-old student at Bartow High School in Florida, mixed up some household chemicals -- toilet bowl cleaner aluminum foil -- in a water bottle to see what would happen.  What happened is that a small explosion caused the top to pop off, followed by billowing smoke.  No one was hurt -- the incident occurred outdoors -- and everyone agreed that Kiera Wilmot hadn't intended to hurt anyone; her principal noted that she was "a good kid" who "has never been in trouble before.  Ever."  He had a little chat with Kiera about the dangers of doing things like that, and Kiera "told us everything and was very honest.  She didn't run or try to hide the truth."

So, chat had, no one's hurt, life goes on, right?  Well, life goes on in Bartow High School, but it does so without Kiera.  She's not only been expelled, but on Monday morning she was arrested and charged with "possession/discharge of a weapon on school property" and "discharging a destructive device."

Oh, and more news:   those offenses are felonies, and Kiera will be tried as an adult.

*   *   *   *   *
Short note today; I've got one brief due today, and one on Monday, and despite my exhortations, they refuse to write themselves.  There were actually some decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court this past week in criminal cases, including a biggie on lesser included offenses.  I've given the latter a quick lookover, and although the result comes as no surprise, the process by which that result was arrived at seems, at first glance, impenetrable.  The fog will hopefully lift over the weekend, and you'll be provided my spot-on analysis come Monday. See you then.

Search

Recent Entries

  • February 20, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    A search decision, more "policies," and why a seminar for muni court judges on taking pleas might be a good idea
  • February 14, 2018
    Two more to death row
    A couple of death penalty decisions from the Ohio Supreme Court
  • February 12, 2018
    En banc on sentencing
    The 8th looks at the appellate court's role in reviewing sentences
  • February 8, 2018
    SCOTUS and the Fourth
    A couple of upcoming Supreme Court decisions on search and seizure
  • February 5, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    The benefits of appealing muni court cases, lecture time, and when you absolutely, positively, cannot raise arguments about manifest weight and sufficiency
  • February 2, 2018
    Friday Roundup
    School specs and sovereign citizens
  • January 31, 2018
    A tale of three cases
    The Ohio Supreme Court decides one case, and decides not to decide two others
  • January 29, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    Getting rid of an attorney, no contest pleas, and probation conditions
  • January 26, 2018
    Friday Roundup
    Information society. Last week I did a post about Aaron Judge and the lack of hard data in the field of criminal law. We have mainly anecdotal information on what kinds of sentences judges hand down, we have no idea...
  • January 24, 2018
    A win in a search case
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Banks-Harvey