https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_1,_Crime_Victim_Rights_Initiative_(2017)

 

 

http://www.acluohio.org/archives/press-releases/aclu-of-ohio-opposes-issue-1

http://www.acluohio.org/archives/blog-posts/state-issue-1-frequently-asked-questions

 

 

The ACLU and Public Defenders Office are recommending a "No" vote on Issue 1 next week.

 

 

The ACLU of Ohio opposes three specific provisions of the initiative. Subsection (3) takes away judge’s discretion as to when to allow the victim to address the accused and provide testimony, raising serious due process and fair trial concerns. Subsection (6) severely abridges discovery rights, which could be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Finally, Subsection (9) affords victims the absolute right to meet with the prosecution, which could compromise their integrity and raise questions about potentially exonerating evidence that could constitute be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

 

Kelsey Grammer is requesting a "Yes" vote on Issue 1 next week.

 

 

cleveland.com

Ohio crime victims' rights amendment passes with landslide victory

Updated 10:10 PM; Posted 10:06 PM

3-4 minutes

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Constitutional rights granted to Ohio crime victims will be expanded after voters overwhelmingly approved Issue 1 on Tuesday.

 

Issue 1, also known as Marsy's Law, was expected to pass with 83 percent of voters approving the measure with 75 percent of precincts reporting, according to unofficial results from the Ohio secretary of state's office.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/election/2017/11/ohio_crime_victims_rights_amen.html#incart_maj-story-1

As a trial attorney, this law was nothing but political showmanship.

 

All provisions (save one) had already been adopted and wrote into law by the Ohio Revised Code. The portion that wasn't however, completely eliminates "Open Discovery."

 

Open discovery, codified as Crim. Rule 16 and also adopted in civil litigation, forces both parties to share all available evidence with one another as "Counsel Only" privileged communications. This allows there to be no surprises at trial; no surprise witnesses, no surprise exculpatory evidence. Open discovery made trials more transparent and fair while protecting sensitive information about the alleged victims by allowing that information to only be shared with counsel.

 

Joe Deters ® out of Cincinnati said he would never practice open discovery in Hamilton County and that he would work to kill Open Discovery. He has succeeded. He used nuanced politics to end open discovery in the name of "victim's rights", because who the hell would vote against something saying "victims rights."

 

This is a bad day for due process in Ohio, a very bad day.

Agree..it's going to make my job a lot harder.

I know when I was assaulted by a career criminal in Cincinnati it was like pulling teeth to find out about court dates and get information about how the case was progressing.  Ultimately, at the last court date that I was not notified about, the individual got a sweetheart plea deal that kept him in jail for only a short period of time.  Afterwards he was released to continue his lifelong crime spree.  It was my understanding with this amendment that this won't happen to others in the same situation.  Am I mistaken?

I know when I was assaulted by a career criminal in Cincinnati it was like pulling teeth to find out about court dates and get information about how the case was progressing.  Ultimately, at the last court date that I was not notified about, the individual got a sweetheart plea deal that kept him in jail for only a short period of time.  Afterwards he was released to continue his lifelong crime spree.  It was my understanding with this amendment that this won't happen to others in the same situation.  Am I mistaken?

 

No, that provision was codified in 2011(?) in the Ohio Revised Code. If your incident happened since then, it was the fault of the Prosecutor, not the law, that you were not notified.

 

The only thing not already codified in Marsy's Law is the end to Open Discovery.

The Ohio Public Defender's Office AND public prosecutors were against Marsy's Law as well as the ACLU.  The 1994 changes rendered virtually all of Issue 1 as redundant.

 

I'm not a legal expert, but with Marsy's Law gaining traction in half a dozen states plus already, I'm thinking all of these Marsy's Law implementations may be challenged on the grounds of violating the 14th amendment.  Anyone have further insight?

 

I am all for notifying victims and family members of court dates, release dates, etc.  But Issue 1 is setting a dangerous precedent of assuming guilty until proven innocent rather than the reverse.  If the problem was in the execution of the 1994 changes of notifying victims, then that needs addressed.  But to go above and beyond and presume guilt over innocence is setting a horrible precedent in Ohio.

The Ohio Public Defender's Office AND public prosecutors were against Marsy's Law as well as the ACLU.  The 1994 changes rendered virtually all of Issue 1 as redundant.

 

I'm not a legal expert, but with Marsy's Law gaining traction in half a dozen states plus already, I'm thinking all of these Marsy's Law implementations may be challenged on the grounds of violating the 14th amendment.  Anyone have further insight?

 

I am all for notifying victims and family members of court dates, release dates, etc.  But Issue 1 is setting a dangerous precedent of assuming guilty until proven innocent rather than the reverse.  If the problem was in the execution of the 1994 changes of notifying victims, then that needs addressed.  But to go above and beyond and presume guilt over innocence is setting a horrible precedent in Ohio.

 

I think when it is challenged, it will be done so on the grounds that it contradicts the Supreme Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland.

 

 

Unfortunately, this will not be ripe until it is implemented, and no plaintiff will have standing until they are already adversely affected by it.

Well, perhaps now that the law that was being ignored is now a constitutional amendment the prosecutors will take more care in their notifications.

Well, perhaps now that the law that was being ignored is now a constitutional amendment the prosecutors will take more care in their notifications.

 

I would doubt it, since there are no punitive provisions for failing to notify victims. This is just Tammany Hall-style politicking out of Hamilton County.

As a trial attorney, this law was nothing but political showmanship.

 

All provisions (save one) had already been adopted and wrote into law by the Ohio Revised Code. The portion that wasn't however, completely eliminates "Open Discovery."

 

Open discovery, codified as Crim. Rule 16 and also adopted in civil litigation, forces both parties to share all available evidence with one another as "Counsel Only" privileged communications. This allows there to be no surprises at trial; no surprise witnesses, no surprise exculpatory evidence. Open discovery made trials more transparent and fair while protecting sensitive information about the alleged victims by allowing that information to only be shared with counsel.

 

Joe Deters ® out of Cincinnati said he would never practice open discovery in Hamilton County and that he would work to kill Open Discovery. He has succeeded. He used nuanced politics to end open discovery in the name of "victim's rights", because who the hell would vote against something saying "victims rights."

 

This is a bad day for due process in Ohio, a very bad day.

 

Due process, and open discovery in particular, are not popular with judges and prosecutors in the Cleveland area.  This is only going to make it worse.

 

Doesn't an online docket solve the notification problem?  Maybe not in rural counties.

^^To be fair, Cuyahoga County Prosecutors are MUCHHHH better than those in the South of the state. And no, an online docket isn't really relevant to this issue. Most of the discovery you give to an adverse party is "counsel only" so only the lawyers can view it, so it isn't available on the docket.

 

This will be overturned.