Legal Opinion

In re A.M.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Decided May 28, 1998No. 9710974Published

1Opinion of the Court

Peter M. Sikora, Judge.

This matter came before the court on the 28th day of May 1998 upon the motion of the accused, now age nineteen, but age seventeen on the date of the alleged offense, for an order compelling the state of Ohio to provide the defense with discovery in the above-captioned juvenile proceeding. The defense seeks discovery for purposes of the probable cause hearing in the within “mandatory bindover” matter.

Due to the level of the charges, and the age of A.M. on the date of the alleged offenses, this court was required to set the matter for hearing pursuant to R.C. 2151.26(B)…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Kent v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. United States v. James Daniel Good Real PropertySupreme Court of the United States · 1993

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API