In criminal law weekly digest *The term “weekly” is used loosely. Very very loosely.
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments next Tuesday on whether the government can require private businesses to provide coverage for birth control and other family planning services. SCOTUSblog has a preview.
The Ohio Supreme Court adds a little more to the Crawford v. Washington library, ruling that admission of an autopsy report not prepared for the primary purpose of the court proceedings doesn’t violate the 6th Amendment.
Russ Bensing at Briefcase8 adds some commentary on Cuyahoga County’s method of appointing counsel, with a great example of why an attorney can often make more money working fast food than taking on appointed cases.
The Innocence Project highlights a couple more wrongful convictions, then discusses their effect on the families of those convicted. California, meanwhile, takes a step backwards in a move that will only increase the number of times the wrong person is executed.
Appellate attorney and blogger Jeff Gamso points out the subtle but dangerous threat to the right to an attorney inherent in the defeat of Debo Adegbile’s nomination to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.
Columbus/Delaware-area defense attorney Brian Jones adds a chapter to his series on the process of defending a client, taking us from initial investigations up through trial by jury.
Dayton defense attorney Chris Beck has added a video about how to check the status of your Driver’s Licence with the BMV.
Anonymous California public defender “Norm DeGuerre” addresses those who wonder if their lawyer is doing a good job.
Forensic science uber-geek Justin McShane discusses why it’s not possible to determine whether a person was driving under the influence of drugs based solely on a blood test taken at a later time. The moral of the story can be summed up in one line: “The scientific truth is that retrograde extrapolation is as one reputable scientist put it ‘the functional equivalent of a wild guess.’”