Case Update
As might be expected with the holiday, last week produced
few decisions of note, or even of not-note:
only 81 appellate decisions, a full quarter of those from the 8th
District; they'll provide fodder for my post tomorrow. The big news from the Supreme Court was its
acceptance of the "contraceptive mandate" case, determining whether the
Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers providing health care insurance
for their employees must have policies which cover contraceptives. SCOTUSblog has a good
analysis of the issues in the case, if you're interested. Going forward, there's not much to look
forward to: the only argument in a
criminal case this month pertains to the prosecution of a soldier for going on
a military base after he'd been barred from entry by the commanding
officer. No, trust me, you don't want to
know what the details are.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently took in a case of mine, State v. Castagnola. I'd lost a motion to suppress down in Summit
County, an event captured for posterity in this post, and the
9th District affirmed by a 2-1 vote. When
the Columbus Seven accepted the case (by a 5-2 vote), I figured I was in good
shape: why would the court accept the
case if it was only going to affirm the lower court? And then last week the court came down with
its decision in State
v. Keck, unanimously affirming the 4th District's unanimous affirmance
of Keck's conviction.
Actually, Keck suggests
that the court's vetting procedures could use a tune-up. On the surface, it presented a key issue, on
the scope of Crawford as it applies
to scientific testimony, specifically, whether
The Confrontation Clause prohibits
the State from introducing testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic
analyst through the in-court testimony of a third party who did not perform or
observe the laboratory analysis on which the statements are based.
You could spend a lot of time talking about that, and the
court's opinion does, but for little discernible purpose: the defense at trial had stipulated to the admission and content of the report. Well, that certainly changes things,
doesn't it?
Still, Keck is
cause for worry. SCOTUS has skirted
around this issue since its initial holding in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that scientific reports could be
considered "testimonial statements" under Crawford. The Court confronted an issue similar to Keck in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, holding that a report for a blood/alcohol
test couldn't be introduced through the testimony of an analyst who performed
similar tests, but who hadn't performed that one. Then two years ago in Willilams v. Illinois (discussed here
and here), a plurality of the Court upheld the
admission of a DNA profile done by an outside laboratory, without the testimony
of anyone from the lab. Lanzinger's
opinion in Keck spends a bit too much
attention on Williams, and gives it a
bit too much deference, given that (1) the plurality didn't decide the case on
Confrontation Clause issues, but held that it was unnecessary to do so because
the report wasn't being submitted for its truth, and (2) the other five
Justices, including Thomas, who concurred only in judgment, thought this was
just too goofy for words.
So, anyway, a cautionary note to keep my exuberance in
check, and on to the courts of appeals...
The 9th District's decision in State v. Parham serves as a lesson
on search and seizure law. The police got
an anonymous tip that a black male was selling drugs to children near a certain
address. They go to the scene and spot
Parham, whose clothing matches the description given by the tip. They approached Parham, patted him down, and
found a "prominent bulk" in the pocket of his vest, which turned out to be a
bag containing packages of marijuana. On
appeal, Parham argues that the bag could've been a legal substance, but the law
is that if the object is "immediately identifiable" as contraband it can be
seized, and the officer testified to just that.
So what's the problem?
The cops had no right to make a stop, let alone a frisk; an anonymous
tip can't furnish the basis for a stop unless the incriminating aspects of the
tip can be corroborated by the police.
That's never raised in the appeal, and what might have been is indicated
in the opinion concurring only in judgment:
"Based upon the limited argument advanced in the appellant's merit
brief, the trial court did not err in overruling the suppression motion."
In adjudicating ineffective assistance of counsel claims,
the courts give attorneys a lot of leeway in the area of "trial strategy and
tactics," and just how much is demonstrated by the 8th District's decision in Cleveland v. Crutcher. Crutcher
went to the Justice Center to turn himself in on a charge of domestic violence,
and had apparently prepared for this by drinking intoxicants to the point of near-stupefaction. When told by the deputies that he'd have to
go to the adjacent police headquarters, he left, only to return minutes later. He started throwing various items through the
metal detector, and one thing led to another.
As usually the case when some of the participants in those imboglios
carry a badge and a gun, the "another" was Crutcher's arrest, for public intoxication,
resisting arrest, and criminal trespass.
The three deputies testified at trial - the only witnesses the city prosecutor
presented - but defense counsel chose to cross-examine only one. The Court actually believed that none of the
three were cross-examined, but nonetheless finds no problem: decisions about cross-examination are
"strategic in nature and will not support an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim," and "it is this court's opinion that there was
nothing to gain from further questioning of the witnesses."
"Further"? How about "some"?
"Any"?
The most interesting case I've read, though, was one from the
6th Circuit, US
v. Ladeau. Ladeau had been
charged with possession of child pornography, which was punishable by up to ten
years in prison. After he won a motion
to suppress, the prosecutor obtained a superseding indictment, charging him
with conspiracy to receive child pornography, which was
punishable by up to twenty years in prison, with a minimum of five. (Conspiracy to possess would have carried the same punishment as the possession
charge, with no minimum mandatory.)
I've read plenty of decisions on judicial vindictiveness --
a judge giving a defendant a stiffer sentence after a successful appeal -- but
decisions on prosecutorial vindictiveness are uncommon. If you've got a potential claim along those
lines, Ladeau is a treasure trove of
law on the issue. Critical to the
outcome here were two factors: the
increase in the severity of the punishment, and that fact that the government
was relying on the exact same evidence it had had in its possession for the
thirteen months that the case had been pending.
A Fistful of
Dollars. In State v. Tyler, the police get a search warrant for a house after observing
various indicia of drug trafficking, and when they execute it, they encounter
Tyler, who flees and is apprehended shortly thereafter, hiding in a neighboring
garage. His claim that he had nothing to
do with the targeted house is rejected by the 8th District, the panel pointing
to the damning evidence: on the mantle
was a picture of Tyler "holding a lot of money in his hand with the sign 'Hood
Rich' in the background."
Comments