double inquiry in Ohio

2018Length of the Delay {¶32} “The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the first factor, length of the delay, involves a double inquiry.” State v. Spencer, 2017-Ohio-456 , 84 N.E.3d 106 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.), citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 , 112 S.Ct. 2686 , 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992).

2018Length of the Delay {¶32} “The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the first factor, length of the delay, involves a double inquiry.” State v. Spencer, 2017-Ohio-456 , 84 N.E.3d 106 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.), citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 , 112 S.Ct. 2686 , 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992).

2022Cuyahoga No. 88665, 2007-Ohio-5450, ¶ 12 , suppressions are also “to protect the integrity of the court and its proceedings.” Courts accomplish this by 3 The Stanford Open Policing Project found that black and Hispanic drivers were often searched on the basis of less suspicion than white drivers, a double standard that is evidence of discrimination (the data set includes millions of stops across multiple states, including Ohio). https://slate.com/technology/2017/06/statistical-analysis-of-data- from-20-states-suggests-evidence-of-racially-biased-policing.html; https://openpolicing.stanford.edu

2016Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992); Miller, 2005-Ohio-518, at ¶ 11 .

2001Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit * * *.” “In determining whether a statute is unconstitutional because it violates the right to equal protection, we first must examine the class distinction drawn to decide if a suspect class or a fundamental right is involved.” Roseman v. Firemen & Policemen’s Death Benefit Fund (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 443, 447 , 613 N.E.2d 574 ; State ex rel.

2001Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit * * *.” “In determining whether a statute is unconstitutional because it violates the right to equal protection, we first must examine the class distinction drawn to decide if a suspect class or a fundamental right is involved.” Roseman v. Firemen & Policemen’s Death Benefit Fund (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 443, 447 , 613 N.E.2d 574 ; State ex rel.

1990In Stevens , the Supreme Court stated: "*** the award was made subject to automatic termination in the event that appellant lived 'in a state of concubinage' and because the trial court did not retain any jurisdiction to modify the award had this occurred, it was error to limit the award in this manner. *** " Furthermore, we note the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas in Stevens, supra, which concurred on this point, and stated: "[Rlestitution should certainly bear no relationship to archaic requirements of chastity, particularly since such requirements have never been applied to men....Thi

1985If the majority of this court would overrule Jones v. Murphy, supra, and Paugh & Farmer, Inc. v. Menorah Home for Jewish Aged (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 44 , thus eradicating the bad law contained therein, I would join those who dissent today pertaining to the judgment excluding the testimony of appellee’s sole expert witness.

1985If the majority of this court would overrule Jones v. Murphy, supra, and Paugh & Farmer, Inc. v. Menorah Home for Jewish Aged (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 44 , thus eradicating the bad law contained therein, I would join those who dissent today pertaining to the judgment excluding the testimony of appellee’s sole expert witness.