Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

The only eyewitness who saw the two men who were trying to steal a catalytic converter from the bottom of a truck described them as bald. They ran from the truck near Alex Road in West Carrolton when the witness shot at them. A West Carrolton police officer created a photo spread or photo array which included an older picture of the man who the cop suspected had the knife in his hand when he came up from under the truck. He placed the old photo of the suspect in the number six position of the photo spread. The witness identified someone else in the photo spread and not the suspect in the sixth position. So the officer went and made a second photo spread. But in this one the Officer placed a newer picture of the suspect in the six position (same position as before). He also removed the person the witness had picked in the first photo spread and made it so the suspect was the only one that was bald - consistent with the witnesses's original description. The witness picked out the suspect in the six position. This procedure was "inherently suggestive" said the Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County. The case was remanded to the trial court as you can read in State v. Chaffin, 2012-Ohio-634, here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

James Russell won his appeal again. This time it was an appeal from a Batson hearing. The last time I appealed Russell's case, the Second District Court of Appeals ruled that a Batson hearing should have been held as you can read here. On remand the trial judge held a Batson hearing but decided that the defense had not made a prima facie case (the first step in the Batson analysis). Russell appealed from that decision. Today the Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County ruled that the trial judge erred in ruling that a prima facie case had not been made. The Appeals Court held that the quantum of proof required for a finding that a defendant has made a prima facie case is minimal and Russell met that burden in this case. Read the decision in State v. Russell, 2012-Ohio-422, here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com