Beginning this month, courts, judges and/or clerks in Ohio required to publish public notices multiple times in “newspapers of general circulation” will be able to turn to a free statewide website as an alternative, thanks to a portion of the state’s recent 720-page state budget bill that charged the state’s Office of Information Technology with creating a state public notice website it was announced last week. (See http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses129/11-hb153-129.pdf )
“Revisions to Ohio Revised Code section 7.16 allow state agencies & political subdivisions, after initially publishing notices in full in a general circulation newspaper, to subsequently publish an ‘abbreviated’ notice in the newspaper if the notice directs the public to the full notice on the state public notice website… the Supreme Court’s staff has identified about a dozen such instances.
OIT notes that users will need to register with the Ohio Business Gateway and establish an online account to use the state public notice website, and has set up an informational version of the state public notice website with more information & instructions. (See also Here)
Additional guidance will be provided by the Ohio Judicial Conference in the upcoming issue of its quarterly newsletter, For the Record.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Ohio Death Penalty Update -- January 2012
This is going to take some doing, but since Ohio’s death penalty is gotten back in the news following District Court Judge Gregory Frost’s postponement of the execution of Charles Lorraine two weeks ago, saying the Ohio Department of Corrections failed to follow some of its own guidelines in the state's newest version of its execution rules, there’s been a whole lot going on. We’re going to try to provide some kind of update & overview.
Judge Frost was quoted in the Columbus Dispatch last Jan. 12 as saying, “It should not be so hard for Ohio to follow procedures that the state itself created. Today’s adverse decision… is again a curiously if not inexplicably self-inflicted wound.” Referring to the stay issued last July for Kenneth Smith, he wrote, “The latest events in this litigation invoke the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ohio created a new protocol and its agents indicated that they would comply with that protocol, presenting this Court with an interpretation of the protocol in which there are five core components from which they cannot vary. Ohio’s failure to stand by its representation that all possible deviations flow up to the Director means that, once again, “[i]t is the policy of the State of Ohio that the State follows its written execution protocol, except when it does not. This [remains] nonsense.”
The Dispatch article further said Allen L. Bohnert, an assistant federal public defender who represents Lorraine, released a statement calling on Gov. John Kasich to issue a moratorium in light of “federal constitutional problems,” and … until such time as the state is able to adequately assure, not only Judge Frost, but the citizens of the State of Ohio, that it is able to comply with the U.S. Constitution and its own rules for executing its citizens.”
The State appealed the Southern District decision, but the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday 13th. held that Charles Lorraine's execution, scheduled this week, should be delayed while changes and the reasons for them are reviewed. More than that, the Sixth Circuit said it “agreed with the district court that the State should do what it agreed to do: in other words it should adhere to the execution protocol it adopted. As the district court found, whether slight or significant deviations from the protocol occur, the State’s ongoing conduct requires the federal courts to monitor every execution on an ad hoc basis, because the State cannot be trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death…” (Holding)
Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins, according to an Associated Press article last Sunday, sent a second letter urging Gov. John Kasich to ask Ohio's attorney general to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the federal courts have wrongly interfered with Ohio executions. Attorney General DeWine in a posted statement said “"We do not believe the stay of execution the federal courts have imposed here is warranted under the Constitution, and want to give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to review this case to ensure that there is a consistent constitutional approach to capital punishment. Ohio's execution process must comply with constitutional standards, and that should be the test as far as the federal courts are concerned."
Meanwhile…… The Dispatch, in a second article, reported that the task force commissioned by the Ohio Supreme Court to examine the state’s death penalty laws & protocols last November had its second meeting last week, saying the state had to better deal with geographical disparities, and that “curing geographical unfairness in capital-punishment cases may require a statewide commission, not county prosecutors, to make the decision when to seek the death penalty.”
Concurrently, the State Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Denny Obermiller, who was to be executed Feb. 25th., last Friday. Michael D. Webb, indicted & convicted in 1991 on two counts of aggravated murder , four counts of attempted aggravated murder, six counts of aggravated arson; and one count of aggravated theft, remains scheduled to be executed on Feb. 22nd.. Webb has a parole board hearing scheduled for today, his attorneys arguing in a death-penalty clemency petition filed with the Ohio Parole Board that “arson evidence used to convict him has been scientifically proved false, according to the Columbus Dispatch this morning. A Cincinnati.com article further notes “Prosecutors say Webb hasn't introduced anything that federal courts didn't review and reject almost a decade ago.”
Lake County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court has another capital case in the works, the Cleveland News-Herald has been reporting. Joseph Thomas, 27, is scheduled to go on trial April 10 on charges of aggravated murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery and tampering with evidence. His attorneys last week filed a motion last week asking Common Pleas Judge Richard L. Collins Jr. to eliminate death as possible punishment, claiming the death penalty would be cruel and unusual punishment and is imposed in an “arbitrary and discriminatory manner” in Ohio. Assistant Lake County Prosecutor Charles Cichocki’s response has been that Thomas “offers no evidence that Ohio’s capital sentencing laws violate the U.S. or Ohio Constitutions… and that the Supreme Court of Ohio has repeatedly rejected claims that Ohio applies the death penalty in a racially discriminatory manner.”
Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Mark Naymik last Sunday wrote about former Ohio Attorney General and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Jim Petro having laid out his views of the criminal justice system in his book, "False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent," which, as the title implies, questions the fairness of our justice system and identifies flaws in how police and prosecutors handle evidence, especially in capital cases. Naymik says he “was recently drawn to the book because capital cases and the procedures we use to put people to death continue to make news here and around the country.”
Naymik quoted Petro as saying in an interview that he’d “bet certainly well over half the prosecutors in the country looking at this book would ultimately agree with most of the issues," he says. "There is another half who wouldn't. They will say this is the work of some liberal-leaning lefty. That's not the case. I am as much in favor of punishing the guilty as anybody, but I'm advocating for a greater degree of care on the part of every prosecutor."
Ohio House Bill 160, which would repeal the death penalty in Ohio, had its second hearing before the House Criminal Justice Committee last December 14th.. Testifying before that committee last month, the state’s longest sitting Supreme Court justice, Paul Pfeifer, offered a long list of reasons why the General Assembly should repeal the statute he helped write as a state legislator, calling the geographic inequity of capital sentences a “death lottery.”
Judge Frost was quoted in the Columbus Dispatch last Jan. 12 as saying, “It should not be so hard for Ohio to follow procedures that the state itself created. Today’s adverse decision… is again a curiously if not inexplicably self-inflicted wound.” Referring to the stay issued last July for Kenneth Smith, he wrote, “The latest events in this litigation invoke the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ohio created a new protocol and its agents indicated that they would comply with that protocol, presenting this Court with an interpretation of the protocol in which there are five core components from which they cannot vary. Ohio’s failure to stand by its representation that all possible deviations flow up to the Director means that, once again, “[i]t is the policy of the State of Ohio that the State follows its written execution protocol, except when it does not. This [remains] nonsense.”
The Dispatch article further said Allen L. Bohnert, an assistant federal public defender who represents Lorraine, released a statement calling on Gov. John Kasich to issue a moratorium in light of “federal constitutional problems,” and … until such time as the state is able to adequately assure, not only Judge Frost, but the citizens of the State of Ohio, that it is able to comply with the U.S. Constitution and its own rules for executing its citizens.”
The State appealed the Southern District decision, but the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday 13th. held that Charles Lorraine's execution, scheduled this week, should be delayed while changes and the reasons for them are reviewed. More than that, the Sixth Circuit said it “agreed with the district court that the State should do what it agreed to do: in other words it should adhere to the execution protocol it adopted. As the district court found, whether slight or significant deviations from the protocol occur, the State’s ongoing conduct requires the federal courts to monitor every execution on an ad hoc basis, because the State cannot be trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death…” (Holding)
Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins, according to an Associated Press article last Sunday, sent a second letter urging Gov. John Kasich to ask Ohio's attorney general to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the federal courts have wrongly interfered with Ohio executions. Attorney General DeWine in a posted statement said “"We do not believe the stay of execution the federal courts have imposed here is warranted under the Constitution, and want to give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to review this case to ensure that there is a consistent constitutional approach to capital punishment. Ohio's execution process must comply with constitutional standards, and that should be the test as far as the federal courts are concerned."
Meanwhile…… The Dispatch, in a second article, reported that the task force commissioned by the Ohio Supreme Court to examine the state’s death penalty laws & protocols last November had its second meeting last week, saying the state had to better deal with geographical disparities, and that “curing geographical unfairness in capital-punishment cases may require a statewide commission, not county prosecutors, to make the decision when to seek the death penalty.”
Concurrently, the State Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Denny Obermiller, who was to be executed Feb. 25th., last Friday. Michael D. Webb, indicted & convicted in 1991 on two counts of aggravated murder , four counts of attempted aggravated murder, six counts of aggravated arson; and one count of aggravated theft, remains scheduled to be executed on Feb. 22nd.. Webb has a parole board hearing scheduled for today, his attorneys arguing in a death-penalty clemency petition filed with the Ohio Parole Board that “arson evidence used to convict him has been scientifically proved false, according to the Columbus Dispatch this morning. A Cincinnati.com article further notes “Prosecutors say Webb hasn't introduced anything that federal courts didn't review and reject almost a decade ago.”
Lake County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court has another capital case in the works, the Cleveland News-Herald has been reporting. Joseph Thomas, 27, is scheduled to go on trial April 10 on charges of aggravated murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery and tampering with evidence. His attorneys last week filed a motion last week asking Common Pleas Judge Richard L. Collins Jr. to eliminate death as possible punishment, claiming the death penalty would be cruel and unusual punishment and is imposed in an “arbitrary and discriminatory manner” in Ohio. Assistant Lake County Prosecutor Charles Cichocki’s response has been that Thomas “offers no evidence that Ohio’s capital sentencing laws violate the U.S. or Ohio Constitutions… and that the Supreme Court of Ohio has repeatedly rejected claims that Ohio applies the death penalty in a racially discriminatory manner.”
Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Mark Naymik last Sunday wrote about former Ohio Attorney General and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Jim Petro having laid out his views of the criminal justice system in his book, "False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent," which, as the title implies, questions the fairness of our justice system and identifies flaws in how police and prosecutors handle evidence, especially in capital cases. Naymik says he “was recently drawn to the book because capital cases and the procedures we use to put people to death continue to make news here and around the country.”
Naymik quoted Petro as saying in an interview that he’d “bet certainly well over half the prosecutors in the country looking at this book would ultimately agree with most of the issues," he says. "There is another half who wouldn't. They will say this is the work of some liberal-leaning lefty. That's not the case. I am as much in favor of punishing the guilty as anybody, but I'm advocating for a greater degree of care on the part of every prosecutor."
Ohio House Bill 160, which would repeal the death penalty in Ohio, had its second hearing before the House Criminal Justice Committee last December 14th.. Testifying before that committee last month, the state’s longest sitting Supreme Court justice, Paul Pfeifer, offered a long list of reasons why the General Assembly should repeal the statute he helped write as a state legislator, calling the geographic inequity of capital sentences a “death lottery.”
Monday, January 23, 2012
You and the Legal System: Divorce Law Basics
Hamilton County Law Library Announces Program on Divorce Law
As a public service, the Hamilton County Law Library, in conjunction with the Cincinnati Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service, will present:
You and the Legal System: Divorce Law Basics
Friday, February 17, 2012
12:00 noon
Hamilton County Law Library
1000 Main St., 6th floor, Cincinnati
Speaker: Susan Ahlrichs, Ahlrichs & Ahlrichs
Ms. Ahlrichs will discuss the steps that must be taken to end a marriage in Ohio.
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Please call 513.946.5300 to reserve a seat.
Please pass this announcement along to your clients, colleagues, friends, congregation, etc. If you are with an organization and would like bookmarks to hand out or a pdf of a poster, just call. Thank you.
About Hamilton County Law Library
The Hamilton County Law Library is located on the 6th floor of the Hamilton County Courthouse and manages a print and electronic collection for its subscribers, elected and appointed officials, the courts, and the public.
As a public service, the Hamilton County Law Library, in conjunction with the Cincinnati Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service, will present:
You and the Legal System: Divorce Law Basics
Friday, February 17, 2012
12:00 noon
Hamilton County Law Library
1000 Main St., 6th floor, Cincinnati
Speaker: Susan Ahlrichs, Ahlrichs & Ahlrichs
Ms. Ahlrichs will discuss the steps that must be taken to end a marriage in Ohio.
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Please call 513.946.5300 to reserve a seat.
Please pass this announcement along to your clients, colleagues, friends, congregation, etc. If you are with an organization and would like bookmarks to hand out or a pdf of a poster, just call. Thank you.
About Hamilton County Law Library
The Hamilton County Law Library is located on the 6th floor of the Hamilton County Courthouse and manages a print and electronic collection for its subscribers, elected and appointed officials, the courts, and the public.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Ohio Supreme Court Child Porn Case- Abandoned Hard Drive Case
In a case in which a computer hard drive was initially left with a defendant’s mother, and then effectively abandoned, later found to contain child pornography for which the defendant was then indicted, the Ohio Supreme Court last Tuesday referenced a line of federal court cases dating back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland, and including United States v. Hershenow (1982), United States v. Chandler (1999) and United States v. Davis (2010), in holding that “The United States Supreme Court has long held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches does not apply to property that has been voluntarily abandoned, because society does not recognize an expectation of privacy in abandoned property as being objectively reasonable.”
Justice Terrence O’Donnell also referred to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 1980 decision in State v. Freeman as a state precedent addressing searches of property that an owner has abandoned.
Defendant Dennis Gould, the Court summarized, having been indicted on two counts of rape, one count of gross sexual imposition, six counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and five counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance; had moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the search of the hard drive, in trial court, asserting that police had illegally searched it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion and he was subsequently found guilty & sentenced to two concurrent life sentences.
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the judgment of conviction and held that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence obtained from the hard drive as the product of an illegal search, stating that the subjective belief that the hard drive had been abandoned was unsupported by the objective facts and testimony in the case.
The state appealed that decision based on Herring v. United States (2009), 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496, and arguing that the exclusionary rule should apply only when a violation of the Fourth Amendment is the result of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard of Fourth Amendment rights or when it involves circumstances of recurring or systemic negligence.
State v. Gould, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-71
Justice Terrence O’Donnell also referred to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 1980 decision in State v. Freeman as a state precedent addressing searches of property that an owner has abandoned.
Defendant Dennis Gould, the Court summarized, having been indicted on two counts of rape, one count of gross sexual imposition, six counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and five counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance; had moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the search of the hard drive, in trial court, asserting that police had illegally searched it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion and he was subsequently found guilty & sentenced to two concurrent life sentences.
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the judgment of conviction and held that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence obtained from the hard drive as the product of an illegal search, stating that the subjective belief that the hard drive had been abandoned was unsupported by the objective facts and testimony in the case.
The state appealed that decision based on Herring v. United States (2009), 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496, and arguing that the exclusionary rule should apply only when a violation of the Fourth Amendment is the result of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard of Fourth Amendment rights or when it involves circumstances of recurring or systemic negligence.
State v. Gould, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-71
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Ohio Commercial Docket Courts
In April 2007, the late Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court Thomas J. Moyer announced the formation of the Supreme Court Task Force on Commercial Dockets, charging it with developing a pilot project to determine the best means of adopting commercial dockets in the state's courts of common pleas.
The Task Force’s final report was issued last Tuesday with findings that the benefits of the program included faster decisions, a creation of some expertise among judges, and achieving consistency in court decisions around the state. Among its 26 recommendations was the creation of a permanent program for courts operating specialized dockets to resolve business-to-business disputes. (Announcement)
Commercial dockets were established in common pleas courts in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton and Lucas counties beginning in January 2009. Over that time, the types of cases that came before commercial docket judges included business liquidations, trade secret disputes, non-compete contracts and shareholder disagreements. Commercial docket opinions & dispositive orders from these four courts are available on the task force’s website.
Temporary rules adopted by the Supreme Court in 2008 called for a multi-court pilot program to assess the best method of establishing commercial civil litigation dockets in the state. Proposed permanent Rules of Superintendence will now be introduced later this year incorporating the task force’s recommendations.
The Task Force’s final report was issued last Tuesday with findings that the benefits of the program included faster decisions, a creation of some expertise among judges, and achieving consistency in court decisions around the state. Among its 26 recommendations was the creation of a permanent program for courts operating specialized dockets to resolve business-to-business disputes. (Announcement)
Commercial dockets were established in common pleas courts in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton and Lucas counties beginning in January 2009. Over that time, the types of cases that came before commercial docket judges included business liquidations, trade secret disputes, non-compete contracts and shareholder disagreements. Commercial docket opinions & dispositive orders from these four courts are available on the task force’s website.
Temporary rules adopted by the Supreme Court in 2008 called for a multi-court pilot program to assess the best method of establishing commercial civil litigation dockets in the state. Proposed permanent Rules of Superintendence will now be introduced later this year incorporating the task force’s recommendations.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ohio death penalty update
Ohio’s death penalty is back in the forefront of the news again following District Court Judge Gregory Frost’s postponement of the execution of Charles Lorraine last week, saying the Ohio Department of Corrections failed to follow some of its own guidelines in the state's newest version of its execution rules. But there’s a lot more than that going on .
Judge Frost was quoted in the Columbus Dispatch last Thursday as saying, “It should not be so hard for Ohio to follow procedures that the state itself created. Today’s adverse decision… is again a curiously if not inexplicably self-inflicted wound.” Referring to the stay issued last July for Kenneth Smith, he wrote, “The latest events in this litigation invoke the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ohio created a new protocol and its agents indicated that they would comply with that protocol, presenting this Court with an interpretation of the protocol in which there are five core components from which they cannot vary. Ohio’s failure to stand by its representation that all possible deviations flow up to the Director means that, once again, “[i]t is the policy of the State of Ohio that the State follows its written execution protocol, except when it does not. This [remains] nonsense.”
The Dispatch article further said Allen L. Bohnert, an assistant federal public defender who represents Lorraine, released a statement calling on Gov. John Kasich to issue a moratorium in light of “federal constitutional problems,” and … until such time as the state is able to adequately assure, not only Judge Frost, but the citizens of the State of Ohio, that it is able to comply with the U.S. Constitution and its own rules for executing its citizens.”
The State appealed last week’s Southern District opinion, but the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday held that Charles Lorraine's execution, scheduled this week, should be delayed while changes and the reasons for them are reviewed. More than that, the Sixth Circuit said it “agreed with the district court that the State should do what it agreed to do: in other words it should adhere to the execution protocol it adopted. As the district court found, whether slight or significant deviations from the protocol occur, the State’s ongoing conduct requires the federal courts to monitor every execution on an ad hoc basis, because the State cannot be trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death…” (Holding)
Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins, according to an Associated Press article last Sunday, sent a second letter urging Gov. John Kasich to ask Ohio's attorney general to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the federal courts have wrongly interfered with Ohio executions. Attorney General DeWine in a posted statement said “"We do not believe the stay of execution the federal courts have imposed here is warranted under the Constitution, and want to give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to review this case to ensure that there is a consistent constitutional approach to capital punishment. Ohio's execution process must comply with constitutional standards, and that should be the test as far as the federal courts are concerned."
Meanwhile…… The Dispatch, in a second article, reported that the task force commissioned by the Ohio Supreme Court to examine the state’s death penalty laws & protocols last November had its second meeting last week, saying the state had to better deal with geographical disparities, and that “curing geographical unfairness in capital-punishment cases may require a statewide commission, not county prosecutors, to make the decision when to seek the death penalty.”
Concurrently, the State Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Denny Obermiller, who was to be executed Feb. 25th., last Friday. Michael D. Webb, indicted & convicted in 1991 on two counts of aggravated murder , four counts of attempted aggravated murder, six counts of aggravated arson; and one count of aggravated theft, remains scheduled to be executed on Feb. 22nd..
Ohio House Bill 160, which would repeal the death penalty in Ohio, had its second hearing before the House Criminal Justice Committee Saturday. Testifying before that committee last month, the state’s longest sitting Supreme Court justice, Paul Pfeifer, offered a long list of reasons why the General Assembly should repeal the statute he helped write as a state legislator, calling the geographic inequity of capital sentences a “death lottery.”
Judge Frost was quoted in the Columbus Dispatch last Thursday as saying, “It should not be so hard for Ohio to follow procedures that the state itself created. Today’s adverse decision… is again a curiously if not inexplicably self-inflicted wound.” Referring to the stay issued last July for Kenneth Smith, he wrote, “The latest events in this litigation invoke the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ohio created a new protocol and its agents indicated that they would comply with that protocol, presenting this Court with an interpretation of the protocol in which there are five core components from which they cannot vary. Ohio’s failure to stand by its representation that all possible deviations flow up to the Director means that, once again, “[i]t is the policy of the State of Ohio that the State follows its written execution protocol, except when it does not. This [remains] nonsense.”
The Dispatch article further said Allen L. Bohnert, an assistant federal public defender who represents Lorraine, released a statement calling on Gov. John Kasich to issue a moratorium in light of “federal constitutional problems,” and … until such time as the state is able to adequately assure, not only Judge Frost, but the citizens of the State of Ohio, that it is able to comply with the U.S. Constitution and its own rules for executing its citizens.”
The State appealed last week’s Southern District opinion, but the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday held that Charles Lorraine's execution, scheduled this week, should be delayed while changes and the reasons for them are reviewed. More than that, the Sixth Circuit said it “agreed with the district court that the State should do what it agreed to do: in other words it should adhere to the execution protocol it adopted. As the district court found, whether slight or significant deviations from the protocol occur, the State’s ongoing conduct requires the federal courts to monitor every execution on an ad hoc basis, because the State cannot be trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death…” (Holding)
Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins, according to an Associated Press article last Sunday, sent a second letter urging Gov. John Kasich to ask Ohio's attorney general to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the federal courts have wrongly interfered with Ohio executions. Attorney General DeWine in a posted statement said “"We do not believe the stay of execution the federal courts have imposed here is warranted under the Constitution, and want to give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to review this case to ensure that there is a consistent constitutional approach to capital punishment. Ohio's execution process must comply with constitutional standards, and that should be the test as far as the federal courts are concerned."
Meanwhile…… The Dispatch, in a second article, reported that the task force commissioned by the Ohio Supreme Court to examine the state’s death penalty laws & protocols last November had its second meeting last week, saying the state had to better deal with geographical disparities, and that “curing geographical unfairness in capital-punishment cases may require a statewide commission, not county prosecutors, to make the decision when to seek the death penalty.”
Concurrently, the State Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Denny Obermiller, who was to be executed Feb. 25th., last Friday. Michael D. Webb, indicted & convicted in 1991 on two counts of aggravated murder , four counts of attempted aggravated murder, six counts of aggravated arson; and one count of aggravated theft, remains scheduled to be executed on Feb. 22nd..
Ohio House Bill 160, which would repeal the death penalty in Ohio, had its second hearing before the House Criminal Justice Committee Saturday. Testifying before that committee last month, the state’s longest sitting Supreme Court justice, Paul Pfeifer, offered a long list of reasons why the General Assembly should repeal the statute he helped write as a state legislator, calling the geographic inequity of capital sentences a “death lottery.”
Friday, January 13, 2012
Fraudulent Use of Defunct Police-support Group
An article posted on Cincinnati.com this morning relays Warren County Sheriff Larry Sims’ concern & warning to residents in the area about letters being circulated seeking contributions to “The United States Deputy Sheriff’s Association,” --- Be forewarned: The group no longer exists.
"The letter requests donations to support under funded sheriff’s offices throughout the country,” the article says, but Sheriff Sims reports the address listed on the letters is a UPS mail drop box in Virginia. Authorities in that state have launched a criminal investigation.
None of the letters had been reported received in Warren County, but sheriffs offices in Delaware (outside of Columbus) and Clark Counties (Springfield; New Carlisle) have found some citizens receiving them.
The Cincinnati.com article adds that anyone receiving one of these letters is asked to contact the Warren County Sheriff’s Office at (513) 695- 1280. There is no connection between this scam and the memorial fund that has been set up in the name of Sgt. Brian Dulle at any Fifth Third Bank
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Southern District Court again postpones Ohio execution
As an Ohio Supreme Court’s task force continues its examination of that state’s capital punishment protocol, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost yesterday postponed the execution of Charles Lorraine, who stabbed an elderly couple to death back in 1986, finding that the Ohio Department of Corrections failed to follow some of its own guidelines in the state's newest version of its execution rules.
Gov. John Kasich had denied Lorraine clemency Tuesday, following a parole board's unanimous recommendation against mercy, and that Lorraine's siblings overcame the same upbringing and that any prosecutorial misconduct would not have affected the trial's outcome. His lawyers argued his life should be spared because of a troubled childhood, lousy legal representation and a prosecutor who violated rules of conduct at trial.
The Southern District, obviously impatient with the state’s progress, rendered “This case is frustrating. For close to eight years, the Court has dealt with inmate challenges to the constitutionality of Ohio’s execution protocol. During that time, the litigation has morphed from focusing primarily on allegations of cruel and unusual punishment to allegations of equal protection violations. Ohio has been in a dubious cycle of defending often indefensible conduct, subsequently reforming its protocol when called on that conduct, and then failing to follow through on its own reforms….
"The end result is that rather than proceeding to a final conclusion in this case that would enable Ohio to proceed to fulfill its lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death free from this ongoing litigation, Ohio has unnecessarily and inexplicably created easily avoidable problems that force this Court to once again stay an execution.
"This is frustrating to the Court because no judge is a micro-manager of executions and no judge wants to find himself mired in ongoing litigation in which he must continually babysit the parties. But the law is what it is, and the facts are what they are. The Constitution demands that a judge honor the rights embodied in that document, that a judge appreciate the nuance involved in those rights rather than adopting a constitutionally irresponsible, “big-picture, close enough” approach, and that a judge follow the evidence presented by the parties to whatever principled conclusion it leads–no matter how easily avoided and frustrating that conclusion may be. In other words, if Ohio would only do what it says it will do, everyone involved in this case can finally move on.” (Holding)
The original execution protocol case in the Southern District dates back to 2004 with Richard Cooey’s appeal, the Court’s record shows. Over the years other inmates had filed additional cases up until last November when, by agreement of the parties, the Court ultimately consolidated all execution protocol cases. (See consolidation order)
Gov. John Kasich had denied Lorraine clemency Tuesday, following a parole board's unanimous recommendation against mercy, and that Lorraine's siblings overcame the same upbringing and that any prosecutorial misconduct would not have affected the trial's outcome. His lawyers argued his life should be spared because of a troubled childhood, lousy legal representation and a prosecutor who violated rules of conduct at trial.
The Southern District, obviously impatient with the state’s progress, rendered “This case is frustrating. For close to eight years, the Court has dealt with inmate challenges to the constitutionality of Ohio’s execution protocol. During that time, the litigation has morphed from focusing primarily on allegations of cruel and unusual punishment to allegations of equal protection violations. Ohio has been in a dubious cycle of defending often indefensible conduct, subsequently reforming its protocol when called on that conduct, and then failing to follow through on its own reforms….
"The end result is that rather than proceeding to a final conclusion in this case that would enable Ohio to proceed to fulfill its lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death free from this ongoing litigation, Ohio has unnecessarily and inexplicably created easily avoidable problems that force this Court to once again stay an execution.
"This is frustrating to the Court because no judge is a micro-manager of executions and no judge wants to find himself mired in ongoing litigation in which he must continually babysit the parties. But the law is what it is, and the facts are what they are. The Constitution demands that a judge honor the rights embodied in that document, that a judge appreciate the nuance involved in those rights rather than adopting a constitutionally irresponsible, “big-picture, close enough” approach, and that a judge follow the evidence presented by the parties to whatever principled conclusion it leads–no matter how easily avoided and frustrating that conclusion may be. In other words, if Ohio would only do what it says it will do, everyone involved in this case can finally move on.” (Holding)
The original execution protocol case in the Southern District dates back to 2004 with Richard Cooey’s appeal, the Court’s record shows. Over the years other inmates had filed additional cases up until last November when, by agreement of the parties, the Court ultimately consolidated all execution protocol cases. (See consolidation order)
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Ohio Supreme Court Traffic Rule Amendment
The Ohio Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it has adopted an amendment to the state’s Traffic Rules that clarifies the authority of traffic violations bureaus.
An addition to Rule 13(B)(4) states that driving while under suspension or revocation of a driver’s or commercial driver’s license cannot be processed by a traffic violations bureau “when jail is a possible penalty.”
Text of the Amendment
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Supreme Court's police dog "sniff" case
“Does a police dog’s "sniff" outside a house give officers the right to get a search warrant for illegal drugs, or is the ‘sniff’ itself an unconstitutional search? So goes the underlying question in Florida v. Jardines, the case the Supreme Court decided to hear last Friday.
Jardines, as an Associated Press article last Wednesday referred to it as, is “the latest in a long line of disputes about whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.”
The Los Angeles Times, Friday, noted that “in the past the court has upheld the use of dogs to sniff luggage at airports and around cars that were stopped along the highway, and that using trained dogs in public areas didn't violate anyone's right to privacy. The Florida Supreme Court, however, has said homes are different, and that the4th Amendment ‘applies with extra force where the sanctity of the home is concerned.’ Based on that rationale, they overturned a Miami man's conviction for growing marijuana at home.” (Fla. Supreme Court decision)
“Acting on a tip,” the Times recounted, “officers had taken their dog to the front porch of a privately-owned home. The dog detected the odor of marijuana and sat down as he was trained to do. The police then used this information to obtain a search warrant and found 179 marijuana plants inside the house.
Here, the Dispatch article noted “in one other major ruling in 2001, Kyllo v. U.S., the justices decided that police could not use thermal-imaging technology to detect heat from marijuana growing-operations from outside a home because the equipment also could detect lawful activity. There the Court had said, ‘We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.’”
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Jardines, as an Associated Press article last Wednesday referred to it as, is “the latest in a long line of disputes about whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.”
The Los Angeles Times, Friday, noted that “in the past the court has upheld the use of dogs to sniff luggage at airports and around cars that were stopped along the highway, and that using trained dogs in public areas didn't violate anyone's right to privacy. The Florida Supreme Court, however, has said homes are different, and that the4th Amendment ‘applies with extra force where the sanctity of the home is concerned.’ Based on that rationale, they overturned a Miami man's conviction for growing marijuana at home.” (Fla. Supreme Court decision)
“Acting on a tip,” the Times recounted, “officers had taken their dog to the front porch of a privately-owned home. The dog detected the odor of marijuana and sat down as he was trained to do. The police then used this information to obtain a search warrant and found 179 marijuana plants inside the house.
Here, the Dispatch article noted “in one other major ruling in 2001, Kyllo v. U.S., the justices decided that police could not use thermal-imaging technology to detect heat from marijuana growing-operations from outside a home because the equipment also could detect lawful activity. There the Court had said, ‘We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.’”
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Monday, January 09, 2012
Federal Jurisdiction & Venue Clarification Act
In a pair of noteworthy articles last Friday, the University of Pittsburgh Law School’s Jurist Paper Chase comments that “around this time of year, many newspapers publish articles listing the laws that take effect on January 1, but that it's unlikely that any of them took note of a new federal law taking effect on January 6, 2012.
“For litigators in state as well as federal courts, though, it is an important date, because it’s when the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 (JVCA), Public Law No. 112-63, takes effect.
“According to the House Judiciary Committee Report [text, PDF],” Jurist reports, “the purpose of the law is to clarify federal jurisdiction statutes to avoid wasting judicial resources, with the core of JVCA's changes addressing jurisdiction and procedure for removal of state court claims to federal court. Among those changes, the JVCA states that inclusion of unrelated state claims does not prevent removal that is otherwise appropriate under federal question jurisdiction, and it adopts a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for determining the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. The JVCA also codified the judicially-created "rule of unanimity," which states that all defendants who have been properly joined and served to the action must consent to the removal of the action to federal court.” [ Article ]
Forum guest columnist Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law writes an accompanying piece professing that JVCA “significantly clarifies the law of federal court jurisdiction and venue but was passed after removing some beneficial but controversial provisions...”
“For litigators in state as well as federal courts, though, it is an important date, because it’s when the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 (JVCA), Public Law No. 112-63, takes effect.
“According to the House Judiciary Committee Report [text, PDF],” Jurist reports, “the purpose of the law is to clarify federal jurisdiction statutes to avoid wasting judicial resources, with the core of JVCA's changes addressing jurisdiction and procedure for removal of state court claims to federal court. Among those changes, the JVCA states that inclusion of unrelated state claims does not prevent removal that is otherwise appropriate under federal question jurisdiction, and it adopts a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for determining the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. The JVCA also codified the judicially-created "rule of unanimity," which states that all defendants who have been properly joined and served to the action must consent to the removal of the action to federal court.” [ Article ]
Forum guest columnist Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law writes an accompanying piece professing that JVCA “significantly clarifies the law of federal court jurisdiction and venue but was passed after removing some beneficial but controversial provisions...”
Friday, January 06, 2012
New Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution
The Ohio Supreme Court yesterday announced that it was creating a new Commission on Dispute Resolution, which essentially reconstitutes its Advisory Committee on Dispute Resolution, now elevating it to the status of a full-fledged Court commission.
The former Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management was disbanded last summer with the passage of the state’s HB 153 biennial budget. That commission had been created back in 1989 “to provide, coordinate, fund, and evaluate dispute resolution and conflict management education, training, and research programs in Ohio, and to consult with, educate, train, provide resources for, and otherwise assist and facilitate other persons and public or private agencies, organizations, or entities that are engaged in activities related to dispute resolution and conflict management.”
Applicant Rules 16.01 thru 16.14 for the Rules of Superintendence of the Courts are in the process of being formulated.
The former Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management was disbanded last summer with the passage of the state’s HB 153 biennial budget. That commission had been created back in 1989 “to provide, coordinate, fund, and evaluate dispute resolution and conflict management education, training, and research programs in Ohio, and to consult with, educate, train, provide resources for, and otherwise assist and facilitate other persons and public or private agencies, organizations, or entities that are engaged in activities related to dispute resolution and conflict management.”
Applicant Rules 16.01 thru 16.14 for the Rules of Superintendence of the Courts are in the process of being formulated.
FBI's rape definition
USAToday this morning reports that “the FBI is changing its long-standing definition of rape for the first time in 85 years to include sexual assaults on males following persistent calls from victims advocates who claim that the offense, as currently defined in the agency's annual crime report, has been undercounted for decades.”
In actuality, FBI Director Robert Mueller formally approved the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division’s Advisory Policy Board (APB) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Subcommittee to revise the definition of rape in the UCR Summary Reporting Program (SRP) last month.
A N.Y. Times article last September described part of the observed problem in terms of the FBI’s 2010 Uniform Crime Report ‘s statistic that there were 84,767 sexual assaults in the United States that year, a 5 percent drop from 2009. “That definition,” the article said critics say, “does not take into account sexual-assault cases that involve anal or oral penetration or penetration with an object, cases where the victims were drugged or under the influence of alcohol or cases with male victims. As a result, many sexual assaults are not counted as rapes in the yearly federal accounting.”
Additional background & comment also appeared in The New Republic, which cited and linked to a 2007 study by the Nat’l. Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center (Med. Univ. S. Carolina) for the U.S. Justice Department, which suggested that the then-used definition yielded misleading results.
That definition of rape was the "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will,” according to the USAToday article. The FBI’s press release lists the revised rape definition as “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
In actuality, FBI Director Robert Mueller formally approved the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division’s Advisory Policy Board (APB) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Subcommittee to revise the definition of rape in the UCR Summary Reporting Program (SRP) last month.
A N.Y. Times article last September described part of the observed problem in terms of the FBI’s 2010 Uniform Crime Report ‘s statistic that there were 84,767 sexual assaults in the United States that year, a 5 percent drop from 2009. “That definition,” the article said critics say, “does not take into account sexual-assault cases that involve anal or oral penetration or penetration with an object, cases where the victims were drugged or under the influence of alcohol or cases with male victims. As a result, many sexual assaults are not counted as rapes in the yearly federal accounting.”
Additional background & comment also appeared in The New Republic, which cited and linked to a 2007 study by the Nat’l. Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center (Med. Univ. S. Carolina) for the U.S. Justice Department, which suggested that the then-used definition yielded misleading results.
That definition of rape was the "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will,” according to the USAToday article. The FBI’s press release lists the revised rape definition as “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Reminding Notice to Hamilton County Lawyers
With the beginning of the New Year we want to remind attorneys practicing here in Hamilton County that as of Sunday, January 1, 2012, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Assignment Commissioner’s Office will no longer send post-cards to counsel with future court dates via U.S. Mail. All attorneys must register for e-mail notifications to receive future court dates via the form posted on the Court’s website under the “forms” icon or downloaded here.
also
As of this morning, January 3, 2012, in accordance with the newly revised Local Rules 10, 11, and 34 of the Hamilton County Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court of Common Pleas will require most civil suits to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Courts. This requirement applies to all Common Pleas Civil “A” case filings.
Additional background, fee, and registration information & procedure is available on the Clerk’s website or by contacting Lynn Streck at
(513) 946- 5612 or via e-mail @ Lstreck@cms.hamilton-co.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)