Showing posts with label Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger. Show all posts

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic - Supreme Court limits prior holding restricting appellate jurisdiction

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its decision in Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, holding 6-1 that an order compelling the production of attorney-client privileged material is immediately appealable. This is good news. That such an order is appealable might seem obvious at first blush, but it was very much in doubt after the Court's holding last year in Smith v. Chen.

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Ohio Supreme Court conducts final oral arguments of 2016 term

Today the Court heard oral arguments in four cases. It also marked the last day of oral arguments for Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger and Justice Paul E. Pfeiffer, who are prohibited from running for re-election. (The Ohio Constitution precludes the election or appointment of any judge who would be 70 years old or older on the date he or she is sworn in.)

Justice Lanzinger has served on the Court since 2005, after being elected in November 2004 and re-elected by a wide margin in 2010. Justice Langzinger has periodically blogged at Justice Judy since 2010.

Justice Pfeiffer, if I'm not mistaken, enjoys the distinction of having served longer on the Court than all but four earlier associate justices, having first been elected in 1992.

Randy Ludlow of the Columbus Dispatch has this look-back on their service on the Court.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

State v. Hand - juvenile delinquency cannot be basis for mandatory sentence

In State v. Hand, the Court held R.C. 2901.08(A) to be unconstitutional as violative of the due process clauses of the Ohio and US Constitutions. That statute provided that an adjudication as a delinquent child constitutes a prior conviction for purposes of mandatory sentence calculation. The Court held the statute unconstitutional because juvenile determinations are made by the court without the benefit of a jury, thus running afoul of Apprendi v. New Jersey. The Court left open the possibility that juvenile delinquency adjudications could nevertheless be factors considered by the sentencing court in its discretion. Justices Terrence O'Donnell, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith L. French dissented.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

State v. Jackson - death penalty; no right to be resentenced by new judge after original judge was publicly reprimanded for violating Code of Judicial Conduct in connection with first sentencing

In State v. Jackson , the Court affirmed the death penalty imposed upon Nathaniel Jackson for the 2001 murder of Robert Fingerhut. Jackson and his co-defendant, Donna Brooks (the victim's former wife), were initially sentenced to death in 2002. Roberts's death sentence was vacated by the Court in 2006, on the ground that the sentencing judge engaged in improper ex parte communications with an assistant prosecutor regarding the sentencing opinion, an act for which the Court later publicly reprimanded the judge. Jackson used the decision in Roberts's case and the public reprimand--and the judge's admission that the same type of ex parte communications had occurred in Jackson's case--to obtain post-conviction relief in the form of a new sentencing hearing. The new sentencing hearing was conducted by the same judge, who in 2012 again sentenced Jackson to death in an opinion that Jackson characterized as substantially identical to the 2002 "tainted" sentencing opinion. The Court rejected these arguments, holding in part that because Jackson had attempted to have the judge removed through the Ohio Constitution's judicial disqualification mechanism, and that disqualification was denied, relitigation of whether the judge was biased against Jackson was barred by res judicata.  The Court further held that there was no showing that the taint of the 2002 sentencing opinion carried over to the 2012 sentencing opinion.  Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented on the grounds that the lower court did not properly consider Jackson's allocution upon resentencing; she wrote that the 2012 sentencing opinion was clearly prepared in advance of the resentencing hearing because it was filed immediately after the hearing, thus violating Jackson's right to allocution.