An Ohio court case (State v. Elmore, Case no. 2004-0041) has a novel basis for an appeal. Among other things, the appeal says the jurors were not allowed to take a smoke break during their three hour long deliberations. Hence, according to the argument, the jurors felt rushed and therefore predisposed them towards a quick decision.
According to the Akron Beacon Journal,
Prosecutor Robert Becker, who tried the case, said he believes the verdict and sentence will stand despite the smoking angle and other elements of the appeal.
"I don't think I've ever heard of this one. It's relatively novel," he said.
Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Ohio State University, likewise gave Elmore's appellate team credit for creativity.
+ + + = = = + + +
In other legal news, some folks in New Mexico are up in arms regarding a custody/adoption case in which the biological father of an adoptee is protesting that parental rights should return to him. The Albuquerque Tribune is reporting that:
According to the opinion, it was not sufficiently proven that Huddleston had abandoned the child after the birth and that his consent was required before the mother proceeded with the adoption.
The appellate court also ruled that Huddleston's actions, or lack of them, before the baby's birth don't prove that he caused the parent-child relationship to disintegrate.
Aloha!
