In Re Baker
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarlisle, P. J.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case for the reason that I am firmly convinced that you cannot, judicially, in one breath treat a child as a child, and in the next breath treat him as an adult. My position is that I concur in the finding of the trial court that Michael Lee Baker was a delinquent child within the meaning of the statute, and he should have been sentenced accordingly. However, that part of the statute referred to in the majority opinion, which empowers the Juvenile Court Judge to imprison in the Mansfield Reformatory for an indefinite term, is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.