The right to a speedy trial is one of the most fundamental protections in criminal law. Grounded in the Sixth Amendment and in analogous guarantees by state constitutions, the right to a speedy trial reflects the principle that the government must proceed with reasonable promptness when it accuses a person of a crime. On paper, […]

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of State v. Wilson in January. This case stems from a sixteen-year pre-indictment delay in the prosecution of Scott Wilson following the death of the victim in 2006. In 1985, Scott Wilson, while living with his girlfriend and her infant child, shook the child, causing

The Eighth District Court of Appeals sent a domestic violence case back to the trial court, because the judge failed to speak one critical finding aloud at the sentencing hearing—namely, that consecutive sentences were not “disproportionate” to the defendant’s conduct and the danger he posed. The reversal came not because a 48-month sentence for a

A recurring question for those who engage with the law: what purpose should the criminal justice system serve? Perspectives on that question often differ, reflecting the varied and deeply personal experiences individuals have with the system. Yet beneath those differing perspectives lies a shared expectation that the criminal justice system operates with sufficient legitimacy to

The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided in State v. Balmert that a driver who tested above the legal limit for marijuana was liable for aggravated vehicular assault under Ohio Revised Code 2903.08(A)(1)(a) when he hit a highway patrol officer with his car. Balmert highlights a growing legal tension between per se drug-concentration statutes and traditional

In December, a Lorain County judge ruled in State v. Stewart that a provision of Ohio’s firearm specification statute is unconstitutional for violating the double jeopardy clause of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. It will almost certainly see review by the Ohio Supreme Court, particularly in light of last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in

The Ohio Supreme Court hears oral arguments Tuesday concerning the application of the state’s 2003 medical malpractice tort reform law in Paganini v. Cataract Eye Center of Cleveland — a matter of first impression expected to be widely watched by plaintiff and defense attorneys alike. After denying the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the

The Ohio Supreme Court is poised to consider if a 2003 law designed to reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance can bar a 94-year-old Marine veteran from taking home the entirety of his $1.5 million jury award. After John Paganini, of Mentor, lost an eye due to an ophthalmologist’s error following routine cataract surgery,

For criminal defendants seeking another review of their case by the Ohio Supreme Court, their odds are slim – so long as the Court’s current trends continue. From January to October of this year, of the 26 criminal cases the state’s highest court agreed to review on appeal, nearly 80% were brought by state prosecutors,

In August, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review two cases addressing claims of Fourth Amendment violations stemming from a February 2024 traffic stop. In each instance, only Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented, voting to review the case and offering concern for the potential narrowing of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. Through changing times, the public