Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument Video

November 4, 2009

Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument Video Posted (Wednesday Nov. 4, 2009)

Official archived video will be posted on the Oral Argument Previews 2009 Archive web page (but only after a few weeks’ time). Archived video links will be posted on our blogs as soon as possible. If any reader has the audio or video for 08-2502 (State of Ohio v. Christian N. Bodyke, David A. Schwab [and] Gerald E.Phillips – Huron County) please email us the file or a link to it.

Related to Ohio’s Senate Bill 10 / Adam Walsh Act/ Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, the following four consolidated cases were heard before the Ohio Supreme Court on Wed, Nov 4, 2009:

Case Number 08-0991/08-0992
Roman Chojnacki v. Marc Dann, Ohio Atty. General [Richard Cordray], in his
Official Capacity – Warren County
Certified conflict: “Whether a decision denying a request for appointment of counsel in a reclassification hearing held pursuant to Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, Senate Bill 10, is a final appealable order.”

On March 23, 2009, the Court ordered the parties to brief the following issues:

* Whether sex offender reclassification hearings conducted pursuant to the provision of Am.Sub.S.B. 10 are criminal or civil proceedings.
* Whether sex offenders are entitled to the appointment of counsel for Am.Sub.S.B. 10 reclassification hearings if those proceedings are civil in nature.

Arguing for the defendant: Jason A. Macke, Arguing for the Ohio Attorney General: David Lieberman

Watch Video here.

08-1624 In the Matter of: Darian J. Smith, Alleged Delinquent Child – Allen County

PropLaw I: The application of SB 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of SB 10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
PropLaw II: The application of SB 10 to persons who committed their offenses prior to the enactment of SB 10 violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
PropLaw III: The application of SB 10 violates the United States Constitution’s prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments.
PropLaw IV: A juvenile court has no authority to classify a juvenile, adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense, as a juvenile sex offender registrant when the statutory provisions governing such a hearing were repealed at the time the hearing was conducted.

09-0189 In re: Adrian R., Delinquent Child – Licking County
PropLaw I: The retroactive application of Senate Bill 10 to juveniles whose offense was committed prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 10 violates the juvenile’s right to Due Process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

Arguing for the defendant: Brooke M. Barnes, Arguing for the Allen Co. Prosecutor’s office: Christina L. Steffan, Arguing for the Ohio Attorney General, James A. Hogan, Arguing for the Licking Co. Prosecutor’s office: Alice L. Robinson-Bond.
Watch video here.

%d bloggers like this: