Court rules against man convicted by eyewitness ID
Headline News
The Supreme Court declined Wednesday to extend constitutional safeguards against the use of some eyewitness testimony at criminal trials, despite concerns that eyewitness identification plays a key role in innocent people going to prison.
In a case dealing with a narrow slice of the issue of identifying a suspect, the court voted 8-1 to uphold the theft conviction of Barion Perry in New Hampshire state court. Perry argued that courts should be able to exclude eyewitness testimony when identifications are made under suggestive circumstances, even when there is no evidence of manipulation by the police.
Judges already can bar testimony when the police do something to influence a witness to identify a suspect.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her opinion for the court that in cases with no police misconduct, lawyers can cross-examine a witness and juries can weigh the reliability of the testimony.
Ginsburg said a prime reason for excluding such testimony when the police are involved is deterrence. "Where there is no improper police conduct, there is nothing to deter," she said.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court rules in favor of arbitration
Headline News 01/10/2012The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that disputes between consumers and companies that issue low-rate credit cards to people with bad credit ratings can be handled in business-friendly arbitration, rather than federal court. The justices voted 8-1 to rev...
-
US judge tosses $322M asbestos lawsuit verdict
Headline News 01/03/2012A Mississippi judge has thrown out a $322 million lawsuit verdict that had been hailed as the largest asbestos award for a single plaintiff in U.S. history. The case began to unravel last year after defense lawyers asked the Mississippi Supreme Court...
-
MT court restores corporate campaign spending ban
Headline News 01/01/2012The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political sp...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.