Judges Commons^™

Revisiting Compassionate Release: The Sentencing Commission’S Compassionate Changes To The 2023 Compassionate Release Policy Statement, Rachel Wilson

Cleveland State Law Review

Compassionate release is a well-established exception to the Sentencing Reform Act’s requirement that a defendant’s sentence not be reduced after its final imposition. The Act requires the Sentencing Commission, through policy statement, to describe “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release. However, the Sentencing Commission’s failure to convene as a quorum for nearly four years precluded any policy statement updates. In that time, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Bureau of Prisons’ internal issues further complicated the compassionate release process. This Note analyzes the 2023 amendment to the compassionate release policy statement, its potential implications, and suggests additional steps to be …

Can Superman Save The Supreme Court After Dobbs? Using Analogical Reasoning To Teach The American People The Superpower Of Stare Decisis, Brandon Stump

Cleveland State Law Review

In this Article, I propose that in this post-Dobbs America, if Americans are ever able to believe in, or even understand the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s power, practitioners, scholars, and educators should rely on the power of analogical reasoning, something attorneys are taught beginning their first weeks of law school. Using the power of analogy, we should take the simple story of Superman to explain the magnitude of the power held by the Supreme Court and the critical role that stare decisis must play in the Court’s decision-making. Perhaps if we explain legal principles and the judiciary by …

Re-Imprisonment Without A Jury Trial: Supervised Release And The Problem Of Second-Class Status, Stephen A. Simon

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in United States v. Haymond shone a light on a practice that has not yet received attention commensurate with its significance: the re-imprisonment of individuals on supervised release without a jury trial. At first blush, the decision is most notable for setting bounds on the government’s ability to re-imprison individuals on supervised release without observing the constitutional rights normally available to defendants in criminal prosecutions. However, examination of the opinions reveals that the decision’s immediate doctrinal impact was quite limited. Moreover, although the three opinions issued in the case reflected disagreements among the Justices, all …

Ohio's Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why And How, Richard S. Walinski, Mark D. Wagoner Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

A 1968 amendment to the Ohio Constitution granted the Supreme Court of Ohio the authority to promulgate “rules governing practice and procedure” for Ohio courts. The amendment also provided that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect” and that no rule may “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

Although the amendment was explicit about automatic repeal of existing laws, it says nothing about whether the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter after a court rule takes effect. That silence has caused enduring confusion. …

How Big Money Ruined Public Life In Wisconsin, Lynn Adelman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article discusses how Wisconsin fell from grace. Once a model good government state that pioneered many democracy-enhancing laws, in a very short time, Wisconsin became a state where special interest money, most of which is undisclosed, dominates politics. This Article identifies several factors as being critical to Wisconsin’s descent. These include the state’s failure to nurture and build on the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s and both the state’s and the United States Supreme Court’s failure to adequately regulate sham issue ads. As evidence of Wisconsin’s diminished status, this Article describes how several of the state’s most …

Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira

Cleveland State Law Review

Multiple mistrials following validly-prosecuted trials are becoming an increasingly harsh reality in today’s criminal justice system. Currently, the Ohio Supreme Court has not provided any guidelines to help its trial judges know when to make the crucial decision to dismiss an indictment with prejudice following a string of properly-declared mistrials, especially due to repeated hung juries. Despite multiple mistrials that continue to result in no conviction, criminal defendants often languish behind bars, suffering detrimental psychological harm and a loss of personal freedom as they remain in “legal limbo” waiting to retry their case. Furthermore, continuously retrying defendants cuts against fundamental …