<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.9.1" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>The Briefcase</title>
	<link>http://briefcase8.com</link>
	<description>Case analysis with an attitude</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:46:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Friday roundup &#8211; Go west</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Bread and Circuses.   In my very first trial, sitting second chair in a personal injury case, I learned a valuable lesson.  During our client&#8217;s cross-examination, it came out that he had a prior injury he&#8217;d neglected to tell us about.  I shot a quick, &#8220;what-do-we-do-now&#8221; look at lead counsel.  Rookie mistake:  never react to testimony, [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/12/friday-roundup-go-west/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Jurors with disabilities</title>
		<description><![CDATA[As the court of last resort on state law questions, the Ohio Supreme Court is asked to hear thousands of cases a year; it agrees to hear only a few hundred, and issues opinions in even fewer.  With that kind of workload, the court tries to get the maximum bang for the buck; opinions should resolve broad [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/11/jurors-with-disabilities/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>A new look at sentencing?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In my Case Update on Monday, I&#8217;d mentioned in passing the 2nd District&#8217;s decision in State v. Watkins.  Since Watkins is arguably the most interesting sentencing opinion since the Supreme Court gutted Ohio&#8217;s sentencing laws four years ago in State v. Foster, I figured that it deserved a more extended look.
Watkins had gone out with [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/10/a-new-look-at-sentencing/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s Up in the 8th</title>
		<description><![CDATA[After my jeremiad last week about forests being felled so that the 8th District judges can write opinions regurgitating in unneeded detail the law on manifest weight and insufficiency, four decisions on the subject this week, and in every one the law is summed up in a tidy paragraph.  A firm believer in William Burroughs&#8217; [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/09/whats-up-in-the-8th-59/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Case Update</title>
		<description><![CDATA[We start our runup to Spring Break &#8212; I&#8217;ll be on vacation next week, filming more of those &#8220;Girls Gone Wild&#8221; videos I use to supplement the meager income from my law practice &#8212; with a paucity of news from DC; the only decision of note (to me, at least), was Johnson v. US, which concerned the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/08/case-update-127/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Friday Roundup</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Once upon a time.  Travis had done all the right things, and he said all the right things.  I&#8217;d done my part, for sure.  Travis, who&#8217;d been down to the joint a couple times in the early part of the decade, had stayed out of trouble since then, until one night he came home and [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/05/friday-roundup-54/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Guns, guns, guns</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Sometimes oral argument gives you no clue as to how an appellate court is going to rule on a case.  Sometimes it does.  The oral argument before the US Supreme Court on Tuesday in McDonald v. City of Chicago is definitely of the latter variety.

McDonald was the natural consequence of the Court&#8217;s decision two years [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/04/guns-guns-guns-2/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Solving Miranda</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Of all the Warren Court decisions expanding the rights of the accused, none earned more enmity over the years than Miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 ruling which required police to give a four-part warning to suspects before interrogation.  Prosecutors, police, and conservative commentators predicted that the decision would be devastating to law enforcement, given that about [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/03/solving-miranda/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s up in the 8th</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The court gets back on track with another pro-defendant search decision, and comes up with several good opinions.  And Your Faithful Correspondent comes up with a good idea for helping to preserve the environment.
The police officers in State v. Burks had certainly done their homework:  they&#8217;d set up a buy-bust operation near E. 67th St. in Cleveland, [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/02/whats-up-in-the-8th-58/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Case Update</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Twin rulings on Miranda were the flavor of the week down in DC:  in Maryland v. Schatzer, the Court announced a new rule as to when police could resume interrogation of a suspect after he&#8217;d invoked his Miranda rights, and in Florida v. Powell, the Court upheld a version of the Miranda warnings which didn&#8217;t [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2010/03/01/case-update-126/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
