Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Justice DeWine's concurrence in Aalim II

Yesterday I noted Justice DeWine's concurrence in Aalim II, and promised to write a bit more. And so--as I see Justice DeWine jog down the street past my office window--here is that post.

The majority opinion in Aalim II is a rejection of a due-process challenge to Ohio's statutory scheme providing for mandatory bindover of juveniles to common pleas court if certain factors are met.  Justice DeWine agrees with the conclusion that the scheme is in fact constitutional, but writes separately to emphasize his belief that the Court has conflated procedural and substantive due process standards.

Stick with me--this is more interesting than you might think.

State v. Roberts - death sentence affirmed on third appeal

Today the Court announced its decision in State v. Roberts, a death penalty appeal that had made two prior trips to the Supreme Court. In the first appeal, the Court vacated the death sentence because the trial judge had engaged in improper ex parte communications with the prosecutor, and had allowed the prosecutor to assist in drafting the sentencing opinion. In the second appeal, the Court vacated the death sentence because the trial court had (apparently) failed to consider the defendant's allocution.

This time, the Court affirms. Justice O'Neill concurred in the judgment affirming the conviction, but dissented as to the imposition of the death penalty (as he now always does). Chief Justice O'Connor concurred in the judgment only.

This blog has previously covered the case of Roberts's co-defendant, Nathaniel Jackson, whose conviction and sentence were affirmed last summer.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Double jeopardy clause bars ethnic intimidation charge

On Wednesday the Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Mutter, an appeal from the Fourth District concerning whether a prior no contest plea and sentence for aggravated menacing precluded a later indictment for ethnic intimidation. The Court holds that it does.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Service of process abroad

In December I wrote about the First District's decision in Richardson v. Clinical Computing PLC, in which the court held that a treaty (the "Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters") permitted service of a complaint and summons by regular mail in the United Kingdom. I also noted that there was a split of authority on the question.

Today the US Supreme Court resolved that split, holding in Water Splash v. Menon that the treaty does indeed permit service of process through regular mail.

A tip of the cap is due to former First District Judge Peter Stautberg, who nailed the analysis in his decision.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Supreme Court case announcements, 5/17/17

Five new accepted cases today: one appeal by the Public Utilities Commission, one pro se criminal appeal, one parental rights case, one arbitration case, and one counseled crim pro case. The announcement is here.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Your patience is appreciated...

I am back from my vacation. Yosemite National Park--you've got to see it to believe it.

No new grants while I was gone. I will dive back in with some updates from the courts of appeals soon.