Hiring An Attorney Can Ease Racial Bias in Drug Cases
A recent Plain Dealer study (October 19, 2008) found that white defendants tend to fare substantially better than black defendants when faced with virtually identical charges. The study found that in the lowest level felony drug cases in Cuyahoga Court that white defendants were 55% more likely to be allowed to plea to a misdemeanor than black defendants. In addition, white defendants were 35% more likely to receive treatment as an alternative to conviction.
However, defendants who were able to hire their own lawyers fared much better than those who had attorneys assigned to them. Therefore, the discrepancy could be related to the fact that white defendants are three times more likely than black defendants to hire their own lawyers.
Due to the studies clear findings that racial bias still exists in the justice system the City Council’s Public Safety Committee held a hearing to discuss the disparities. The City Council invited the Cleveland Municipal Court Judges, NAACP, local clergy, and representatives from the offices of the Cuyahoga County prosecutor and public defender to try and begin to rectify this unfairness.
To read the full Plain Dealer two-part study visit:
Part One
Part Two
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smell of Marijuana Can Create Probable Cause
This past summer (July 29, 2008) the Sixth Circuit Court in U.S. v. Crumb upheld a decision from the Ohio Northern District denying an appeal to suppress evidence obtained from a warrentless search, holding that the smell of marijuana was a justification for a warrentless search. The warrentless search was conducted by a police officer who smelled marijuana and saw a partially smoked marijuana cigarette in plain view during a traffic stop. The court held that the officer had probable cause to conduct a lawful search of the vehicle without a warrant. The search incidentally turned up more marijuana, crack cocaine, ecstasy pills, and a semi-automatic weapon in the defendant’s car.
For more information please visit:
New Ohio Court Record Access Rules Create Controversy
No. 08-3207: United States v. Crumb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Adopts Castle Doctrine: Presumes Person Acts in Self-Defense When Protecting Home
Under Ohio Senate Bill 184, which went into effect in 2008, it will now be presumed that a person lawfully occupying a home or vehicle acted in self- defense against someone who unlawfully enters the home or vehicle. Previously, there was an exception to the retreat rule that allowed the use of deadly force by a person who was protecting his or her home and its inhabitants from attack, especially from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily harm. However, this retreat rule placed the burden on the home occupant to prove they were defending themselves from death or serious injury. Now there is a presumption that the person was acting in self-defense, and although the prosecution may try and disprove this presumption, this is still is different from the prior law that was in place.
When the law was passed Ohio Senetar Buehrer said, “I think the legislation before you today is ... going to make people in this state and in our communities feel safer in their homes and more able to conduct themselves in a lawful way as they take about the awesome responsibility of protecting their families, and protecting themselves, within their homes.”
For More Information about this please visit:
New Ohio Court Record Access Rules Create Controversy
Ohio governor signs 'Castle Doctrine' bill despite concerns by law enforcement
Senate Bill 184
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Traffic Cameras are Within City’s Authority
In January 2008 the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that, “an Ohio municipality does not exceed its authority under the “home rule” provisions of the state constitution by creating an automated system for enforcement of traffic laws that imposes civil liability on violators, provided that the municipality does not alter any statewide traffic regulation." (Mendenhall v. Akron) This issue was referred to the Ohio Supreme Court by the federal district court. Upon return of the case to federal court, there may be constitutional due process issues left to resolve.
In other words, those pesky traffic cameras are here to stay. However, in May 2008 H.B. 30 was passed which required cities, like Cleveland, to post signs at highway exits indicating that the city is using red light cameras and/or speed cameras. This bill also required the timing of the lights at the traffic camera monitored intersections to conform to Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
For More Information Please Visit:
New Ohio Court Record Access Rules Create Controversy
Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33, 2008-Ohio-270
House Bill 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
