This weekend, respected CBS News Magazine 60 Minutes did a story on the underage drinking debate.  Lesley Stahl examines the debate over lowering the drinking age to 18, a controversial idea embraced by some people and roundly criticized by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  You should watch it here:

www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

 

 

An interested party recently asked:  If you were born at 11:00 pm, can you begin drinking on your 21st birthday at midnight or do you have to wait until 11:00 pm on your birthday?  Well, according to State v. Yarger 2009-Ohio-543, 3rd District Court of Appeals:  View Court Published Official Document, the State of Ohio does not recognize fractions of a day.  Based upon this ruling it is appropriate to serve alcohol to persons at the stroke of midnight on the date of their birth, regardless of the time of birth. Thanks to www.OVIlaw.com for doing a great job collecting caselaw.  Happy Birthday!

Whiskey Wisdom, #113
If there’s wisdom in whiskey, I’ve not found it;
Just stupor and forgetfulness inside.
But also happiness—no way around it;
There’s bliss in that amber, Lethean tide.

An unexamined life’s not worth the living,
Said Socrates, who faced death without fears;
It’s true, but my exam is more forgiving
of foibles and failures after three beers.

Oh give me booze instead of introspection,
Distill my doubts in bottles, not in verse;
Abet me in this rational deflection
And, if not better, things will be no worse--

Now there’s a truth, sunk in this G & T,
Greater than dreamed in your philosophy.
—Scott Standridge

www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com

 

Important News from the National Associationof Criminal Defense Lawyers regarding forensic testing.

Prior to Prohibition, Dayton had a booming brewery industry.  The Dayton Brewing Company, Stickle Brewery, Wehner Brewery, Riverside Brewery and the Third Street Brewery boomed after lager was introduced in 1852.  Lager reminded the Germans of their hometown and the lighter taste appealed to everyone else.  "By 1908 more the 200,000 barrels were being made annually, with $300,000 being paid each year in wages." Dalton, Breweries of Dayton (A Toast to Brewers from the Gem City 1810-1961).  Ohio, having one of the strongest prohibition movements, destroyed this "gem" of an industry, which never recovered after the Noble Experiment.  Let's hope that we can get some new breweries in the coming years.

In State v. Clark (2009), 2009-Ohio-529, the Second District Court of Appeals fell in line with the Ohio Supreme Court holding that based on State v. Mays (2008), 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204, 2008-Ohio-4539, one marked lane (fog line) violation is sufficient to justify a stop.

HALF OFF

Brooks Brothers announces a special sale

For a limited time only -- your life--

Bind yourself in our fine cut cloth, grow pale.

Take a docile and subservient wife

Drive to glass or concrete towers each day

Stain dad tree with ink as computer chips

Tally commodity transfers -- your pay

Then off through electric lit night you slip

To Happy Hour where seven whiskey sours

Paint a faint grin over your clown grimace

Hollow echoes mock your outward power

Tail snapped in the trap, twitch in this race

Daily lies mercifully few in number

'Til dignity is a blank mirror stare

This poem is found in Ken Jones book "Unutterable Blunder and Palace Disasters" available at www.Amazon.com.

State v. Bruce (2008), 2008-Ohio-5514, is the Second District's latest "destruction of evidence" ruling.  Here, the court granted a motion to provide the blood sample to the Defendant's expert.  The lab was not copied on this order.  The 2nd District held that the State did show substantial compliance with the OAC and the fact that the lab destroyed the blood after the Court granted an Order to provide a specimen of blood to D''s expert. The court found that there was no bad faith in the destruction of the evidence because the lab destroyed it more than 1 yr. after the date of collection, and more than 2 mos had passed since the order was granted before D''s expert tried to get the blood. D never notified the lab directly, although the prosecutor had been served.

State v. Thompson, 2009-Ohio 314 (slip opinion)
The Ohio Supreme Court held that: "... neither R.C. 2946.75 nor State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199,2007-Ohio-1533, 863 N.E.2d 1024, requires the state to prove that Thompson had been represented or that he had validly waived representation.  According to Brooke, the state does not have the burden of proving that Thompson had been represented or that he had validly waived representation unless Thompson makes a prima facie showing that he had been “uncounseled” in his prior convictions — that is, that he had not been represented and that he had not validly waived representation."

This effectively makes it the responsibility of the defense attorney to raise this as an affirmative defense with all of the attendant ethical requirements of "good faith" assertion of the defense.  At a minimum, the attorney should make a discovery request that goes to the issue, a motion to preserve the issue and make contact with the previous court(s) to ascertain what was plead to and whether or not the client properly waived their rights.  In my opinion, this matter should be raised prior to trial in a "Brookes Motion." 

Where others fear to tread, a 20-year-old college student from Tequesta, Fla., boldly stepped forward Tuesday to ask Supreme Court ...   more »