[ Video Library Home ]

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

Collections

Description

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?

- Click marker to go directly to that point in the video -
• Daniel Van for the state
• Nathaniel McDonald for Lindell Brunning
• Summation: Daniel Van for the state

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 :

Date : 04-25-2012 View : 1,527 Views Duration : 00:37:01 Size : 168.1 MB

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

Collections

Description

Tags

Related Links