Case No. 2011-1066 State of Ohio v. Lindell W. Brunning, Jr.

 

Date

04-25-2012

Duration

00:37:01

Download

Download File : 360p
 
 
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
Width : px Height : px
Code :
 Facebook Embed : To embed this video into your Facebook page, copy and paste the above URL into Facebook's 'Link' box in its 'Share' options.
Please Note : End points and dimensions are not recognized by Facebook.
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
URL :
 
Did Court Err in Vacating Sex Offender's Convictions Based on 'Adam Walsh Act' Provisions Later Held Unconstitutional?

In Case Where Defendant Failed to Report Address Change, Gave Police False Address

State of Ohio v. Lindell W. Brunning, Jr., Case no. 2011-1066
Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)

ISSUE: Did the Eighth District Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it vacated the convictions of a Cleveland man for violating sex offender reporting requirements imposed by the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) based on Ohio Supreme Court decisions holding that it was unconstitutional to apply the AWA’s reporting requirements to persons like the defendant?
 
 
TimeTitle
00:01:18Daniel Van for the state
00:18:22Nathaniel McDonald for Lindell Brunning
00:33:57Summation: Daniel Van for the state