OSJCL Amici is excited to present “Doctrinal Deliberation,” a new section of the site intended to provide informative, dynamic and entertaining discussion of specific criminal law doctrines. Inspired by our most recent publication, “Post-conviction Problems with Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B)” by Julianne Claydon, “Doctrinal Deliberation” seeks to provide a unique venue for practitioners, academicians, and students to comment on notable criminal law doctrines that appear in specific statutes or emerge for specific cases. OSJCL Amici welcomes submissions to this new section, and invites you to consult our Submission Guidelines if you are interested in authoring an article. Make sure to visit the “Doctrinal Deliberation” on a regular basis to see what new discussions are posted.

The Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law is very pleased to introduce OSJCL Amici: Views from the Field, a first-of-its-kind, online resource for timely and critical commentaries on the cutting edge of criminal law. Our hope in creating this resource is to help bridge the divide between the academy and the practicing community by creating a venue for leading practitioners to engage with academics, students, the public, and others in the criminal law field.We expect that future on-line commentaries will come from practicing lawyers as well as judges, and we expect to cover a diverse range of topics so that OSJCL Amici can serve as a forum for a broad array of interested authors and readers. We hope that you enjoy our first offering of essays, and that you will share your feedback on both the substance and style of this new endeavor.

New crimes have been popping up across America in recent years. Do prosecutors welcome these additions and extra charges or do the new crimes plague the daily life of a criminal attorney? If criminal prosecutors do not support adding criminal offenses to the law, who initiates new regulations and sustains them throughout the legislative process? Kyle Graham, a Deputy District Attorney in Mono County, California argues that prosecutors are not responsible for creating new crimes and in fact, do not welcome new offenses. His article explains Why Prosecutors Hate New Crimes.

Why Prosecutors Hate New Crimes

Kyle Graham
Deputy District Attorney, Mono County, California

Prosecutors hate new crimes. This may come as a surprise to those who believe that prosecutors and legislators have entered into an unholy alliance to expand the scope of state and federal criminal liability in perpetuity. But it is true. With rare exceptions, new crimes are unwelcome complications to a prosecutor’s line of business.

[click here to read this article]

Post conviction Problems with Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B)

Julianne Claydon
Attorney at Law, LLC

ABSTRACT

Rule 26(B) of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure provides the procedural means for a criminal defendant to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The rule obliges a criminal defendant to file an “Application for Reopening” in the Court of Appeals, a collateral post-conviction remedy, instead of raising deficient performance of appellate counsel as an issue in a second direct appeal. To demonstrate the difference, there is no Sixth Amendment right to court appointed representation for an indigent criminal defendant in a Rule 26(B) Application. This note will provide the history of Appellate Rule 26 and explore the representation gap. This note will also detail how the amendment to Appellate Rule 26 falls short in providing defendant-appellants the means by which to seek redress for deficient appellate counsel representation.

[click here to read this article]