Law Commons^™

66/06/14 Notice Of Appeal For Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Louis Stokes

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

Louis Stokes gives notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court from judgment rendered by 8th District Court of Appeals on May 25, 1966. Appeal is on questions of law and on condition that motion for leave to appeal be allowed by Supreme Court of Ohio; constitutional question is also involved.

66/05/25 Journal Entry From Appeals Court Affirming The Common Pleas Court Judgment In Ohio V Chilton And Ohio V Terry, Samuel H. Silbert

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

The Court of Appeals, Eight District, Cuyahoga County finds no error prejudicial to the appellant, thus affirming the Common Pleas Court judgement. Signed by Chief Justice Joseph H. Silbert, with Justices Joseph A. Artl and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan concurring.

66/02/11 Opinion, Eighth Judicial District Of Ohio, Court Of Appeals, Cuyahoga County, Samuel H. Silbert

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

Judges Samuel H. Silbert, Joseph A. Artl, and James Joseph Patrick Corrigan unanimously upheld Judge Bernard Friedman's decision in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The Appeals Court held that Detective Martin J. McFadden had validly found the gun carried by John Terry and had, at the moment of the arrest, adequate probable cause to arrest Terry.

66/02/10 Police Upheld In Acts Of Personal Search, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Justices Joseph H. Silbert, Joseph A. Artl and J. J. P. Corrigan of the 8th District Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Bernard Friedman in his ruling that a policeman has a right to question a suspicious person and search him in order to protect himself from a possible assault with a deadly weapon.

Book Review, Howard L. Oleck

Cleveland State Law Review

Reviewing Equal Justice Under Law: The Supreme Court in American Life, Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, 1965

65/03/11 Brief Of Defendant-Appellant, Louis Stokes

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

"ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The Court erred in not sustaining defendant's Motion to Suppress upon making its finding that the arrest herein was illegal. (R. 96, 100)

2. The Court erred in refusing to apply constitutional guarantees prohibiting illegal searches and seizures and substituting therefor a doctrine of stop and frisk."

65/03/11 Stipulation Of Fact And Evidence, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

"By stipulation and agreement by and between Reuben Payne, Assistant County Prosecutor, on behalf of the State of Ohio, and Louis Stokes, on behalf of the defendants, Motion to Suppress the Evidence filed by the said Louis Stokes on behalf of the defendants, John W. Terry and Richard D. Chilton, were consolidated for the purpose of hearing on the Motions to Suppress.

The defendants had each been indicted for the offense of Carrying Concealed Weapons under separate indictments. The defendant John W. Terry had been indicted in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Branch, under case number 79491. The defendant …

64/10/28 Appeal By John Terry Defendant-Appellant (Law & Fact), Lee E. Skeel

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

October 28, 1964 Motion by defendant appellant for stay of execution pending appeal granted. Motion for bail overruled.

64/10/19? Affidavit Of John W. Terry, John W. Terry

Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County

Affidavit stating John W. Terry doesn't have the money to defray a legal appeal on his behalf.

64/09/23 Illegal Search Ruling Is Due Today, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Newspaper Coverage

Reports that Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Bernard Friedman is expected to rule today on whether two men charged with carrying concealed weapons were searched legally. Richard Chilton and John Terry's attorney, Louis Stokes, asked that the case be dismissed because the police search of the men violated their constitutional rights.

64/09/23 Judge Upholds Police In Seach-Seize Arrest, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Bernard Friedman overruled the challenge, led by defense attorney Louis Stokes, to Detective Martin McFadden's search of John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. Judge Friedman suggested his decision be appealed, saying that there is no law in Ohio covering this situation and three states have laws on this subject. I strongly suggest you take this ruling to the Appellate Court to make the law clear to citizens and policemen."

64/09/22 Judge Bernard Friedman's Opinion In State V. Chilton And State V. Terry, Bernard Friedman

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

In the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Bernard Friedman drew a distinction between "stop and frisk" and "search and seizure." This distinction was also recognized the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio.

Judge Friedman wrote in his opinion:

"A search is primarily for the purpose of trying to obtain evidence in connection with the commission of a crime, that the police officer may reasonably believe that a crime has been committed or might be committed.

A frisking is strictly for the protection of the officer's person and his life. There was reasonable cause in this case …

64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 3, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Part three of Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.

64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 1, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.

64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 2, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Part two of Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.

64/09/22 Defendant's Bill Of Exceptions - Part 4, John T. Corrigan, Louis Stokes, Reuben M. Payne

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Part four of Defendant's Bill of Exceptions for State of Ohio v. John W. Terry and State of Ohio v. Richard D. Chilton. Appearances: John T. Corrigan and Reuben Payne for the State of Ohio and Louis Stokes for the Defendants.

64/09/22 Illegal Search Is Charged At Concealed Weapons Trial, Cleveland Press

Newspaper Coverage

Reports that Defense Attorney Louis Stokes asked Common Pleas Court Judge Bernard Friedman to dismiss the concealed carry charges against John Terry and Richard Chilton on the grounds that Cleveland PD Detective Martin McFadden's search of the two men was illegal and violated their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

64/05/12 Capias On Indictment For Carrying Concealed Weapons, John T. Corrigan

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

No abstract provided.

63/11/02 Mcfadden's Affidavit Re: Terry's Concealed Weapon, Martin J. Mcfadden

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Affidavit in which Cleveland Police Detective Martin J. McFadden attests to finding a concealed weapon on John W. Terry on October 31, 1963.

Book Review, C. Richard Andrews

Cleveland State Law Review

Reviewing C. Herman Pritchett, The American Constitution, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959

The President's Use Of Troops To Enforce Federal Law, George H. Faust

Cleveland State Law Review

The political genius of man has failed to solve one ancient and basic problem of politics. Briefly stated, it is as follows: What shall be the proper division of authority among governments? How much authority shall be given to a central government and how much shall be left to local or state governments?

Congressional Control Of U. S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction, George H. Faust

Cleveland State Law Review

Senate Bill No. 2646 proposed in the Congress is unprecedented in scope. If it is enacted the Supreme Court will be reduced to a virtual nullity. Displeasure with recent decisions of the Court has engendered an attack upon its status which strikes at its vitals. This article is an analysis of the bill and the types of cases over which the Supreme Court would no longer have appellate jurisdiction.