Hampel v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court's sexual predator determination was \not against the manifest weight of the evidence\
• holding that, in accordance with Evid.R. 101(C), Ohio Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply to sexual predator determination hearings
• holding that \registration and notification provisions of [the 1997 Ohio sex offender registration law] do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because its provisions serve the remedial purpose of protecting the public\
• stating: “[T]hese provisions have the remedial purpose of collecting and disseminating information to relevant persons to protect the public from registrants who may reof-fend.”
• stating: \[T]hese provisions have the remedial purpose of collecting and disseminating information to relevant persons to protect the public from registrants who may reoffend.\
• finding that information within a presentence investigation report was reliable and admissible at a sexual predator hearing and mentioning the propriety of considering past incidents listed therein without limiting such holding to incidents that resulted in conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).