u/GroundbreakingAlps78

My father owns a 2100 sqft bungalow with 4-6 bedrooms in South Euclid and he’s planning to downsize to a smaller home or maybe even a condo.

The home needs to be updated and also needs a few repairs, and my husband (a contractor) had plans to perform a lot of the work this summer. However, I recently read that it’s currently a seller’s market in the area. Would he be better off selling the home in its current state, or making repairs and/or updates before selling?

I’m happy to answer questions with any important details!

Hello!

Can you recommend a good pair of aviation headphones for a private pilot (hobby) who flies occasionally? Is this a solid gift idea? Please let me know if additional info is needed and I will do my best to answer questions.

Thanks in advance!

Nearly a decade ago, I served on a grand jury in Ohio. One experience from that time has stayed with me, and I’d really appreciate insight from legal professionals/knowledgable people about whether there is a straightforward legal answer about what our jury should have done in the following situation:

Quick intro for those who don’t know: a Grand Jury is responsible for determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence to go to trial in the first place (indictment). We heard 20-30 cases each day, and had the opportunity to ask questions from the people presenting evidence.

Many of the cases our grand jury heard involved felony drug transactions. Ohio law includes sentencing enhancements/aggravating circumstances for drug crimes committed within 1000 feet of schools or childcare facilities.

After hearing many cases, I noticed a strange pattern: every single drug transaction occurred immediately next to a daycare or school. It seemed unlikely that drug dealers would *intentionally* make this particular choice, so I eventually started asking the police officers whether it was them or the dealer who suggested the specific meeting location. The officers admitted that they were the ones who proposed the location.

This sparked debate among our jurors. Some of us became uncomfortable with what felt like the state intentionally engineering harsher charges by steering transactions toward enhancement-triggering locations. As a result, we decided to issue a “no bill” on the enhanced charge for these cases. To be clear: we issued a “true bill” for the primary drug transaction charge and a “no bill” for the upcharge.

The prosecutor pushed back and told us that this was contrary to the law. The jury acknowledged that the defendants had committed the offense within 1000 feet of a childcare facility, regardless of who suggested the location. In other words: our job was to determine whether the legal elements were met, not whether we approved of police tactics.

Looking back, I honestly still don’t know what the “correct” answer was.

**Arguments in favor of the prosecutor’s position:**

- Jurors are supposed to apply the law as written, not substitute their personal moral beliefs.
- The enhancement statute apparently did not require proof that the defendant intentionally chose the location.
- Allowing jurors to selectively disregard laws could create an inconsistent and arbitrary court system.
- If we’re willing to accept that police can organize sting operation drug deals, how is this any different?
- The supplemental charges served as leverage for the prosecutor to maximize sentencing.

**Arguments that troubled some jurors:**

- It felt ethically questionable for the state itself to help create the aggravating circumstance. This seemed to border on entrapment.
- A Grand Jury was designed to prevent the abuse of state power via malicious prosecution.
- The state should not be “rewarded” for intentionally orchestrating situations that theoretically increase risk to children. They should be stopping crime rather than creating it.
- The supplemental charges served as leverage for the prosecutor to maximize sentencing.

I hope you can recognize the legitimate ethical controversy that exists here. I am not sympathetic to the drug dealers who committed these crimes. I’m simply curious about the role of jurors when police/prosecutorial conduct contributes to the existence of the charge itself.

Are there relevant doctrines/case law that explore this type of issue? Is there a straightforward legal answer regarding what our jury *should* have done?

Thanks in advance!

After participating in a few debates on this sub, I’ve been genuinely surprised at how much confusion still surrounds this topic. In particular, I noticed **several** people asking to see “transitional fossils”, imagining that if evolution were real, it would produce several “half-monkey-half-man” type creatures. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution is a continuous process. Each new generation is nearly identical to their parents. They also possess several minor differences that can potentially be passed to their descendants. As such, every living species is a “transitional species” between its ancestors and its descendants.

I came across an absolutely fantastic analogy earlier today, and I want to share it because I think it will help some people gain a better understanding of evolution:

Language evolves.

As I’m sure you know, languages change over time. New words are gradually introduced: some get picked up, and some disappear after just one generation. Sometimes words get repurposed and their meaning is changed forever. Modern slang occasionally gets selected for formal use. We have some records of ancient Latin before it gave rise to French and Spanish. We have Bibles written in koine Greek, and it’s drastically different from modern Greek. However, because the changes to the language occurred so gradually, there is never anyone speaking “half-ancient-half-modern”. Each generation is its own transition forward.

Consider that analogy, such that new words/phrases/pronunciations are akin to traits, and the transition is much more intuitive!

I hope that helps!