Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Landrumgreen2 sentences2022Legal Analysis {¶46} Wilson directs our attention to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Landrum to argue that, “when a witness asserts a privilege against self- incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone * * * [and] has a duty to determine if the witness’s refusal to answer is justified.” Appellant’s Brief, 12, citing State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 120 , 559 N.E.2d 710, 726 (1990). 2022Legal Analysis {¶46} Wilson directs our attention to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Landrum to argue that, “when a witness asserts a privilege against self- incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone * * * [and] has a duty to determine if the witness’s refusal to answer is justified.” Appellant’s Brief, 12, citing State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 120 , 559 N.E.2d 710, 726 (1990). | 2 | 9 |
United States v. Apfelbaumgreen2 sentences2000See United States v. Apfelbaum (1980), 445 U.S. 115 , 100 S.Ct. 948 , 63 L.Ed.2d 250 ; 14 January Term, 2000 Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 . {¶ 48} When a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone. 2000See United States v. Apfelbaum (1980), 445 U.S. 115 , 100 S.Ct. 948 , 63 L.Ed.2d 250 ; 14 January Term, 2000 Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 . {¶ 48} When a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2019Vol. II at 283.) {¶ 45} In general, "when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness's claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness's refusal to answer is justified." State v. Moody, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-353, 2003-Ohio-950 , ¶ 35, citing State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 447 (2001). 2014State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 447 , 751 N.E.2d 946 (2001); State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 120-121 , 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990). | 1 | 4 |
Ex parte Irvinegreen2 sentences2016“The trial judge in appraising the claim ‘must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the 31 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO case as by the facts actually in evidence.’ ” Id. at 487, quoting Ex parte Irvine, 74 F. 954, 960 (C.C.S.D.Ohio 1896). {¶ 80} The majority states that “[t]he record before us does not reflect an ideal inquiry by the trial court” into the basis of Lester’s claim of privilege. 2016“The trial judge in appraising the claim ‘must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.’ ” Id. at 487, quoting Ex parte Irvine, 74 F. 954, 960 (C.C.S.D.Ohio 1896). {¶ 80} The lead opinion states that “[t]he record before us does not reflect an ideal inquiry by the trial court” into the basis of Lester’s claim of privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Temple v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2016Once a witness asserts the privilege, “[i]t is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, * * * and to require him to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id., quoting Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881). 2016Once a witness asserts the privilege, “[i]t is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, * * * and to require him to answer if ‘it dearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’” (Emphasis added.) Id., quoting Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman v. United States
green
2 sentences2024Relevant Authority {¶47} “The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness’s refusal to answer is justified.” State v. Spangler, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16–CA–12, 2017–Ohio–268, ¶ -17- 30, citing State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016–Ohio–1595 at ¶ 45, citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951). 2024Relevant Authority {¶47} “The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness’s refusal to answer is justified.” State v. Spangler, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16–CA–12, 2017–Ohio–268, ¶ -17- 30, citing State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016–Ohio–1595 at ¶ 45, citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951). | 6 | 2000–2024 |
State v. Arnold (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024Relevant Authority {¶47} “The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness’s refusal to answer is justified.” State v. Spangler, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16–CA–12, 2017–Ohio–268, ¶ -17- 30, citing State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016–Ohio–1595 at ¶ 45, citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951). 2017State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016-Ohio-1595 , 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 30 . {¶30} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness's claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness's refusal to answer is justified. | 4 | 2017–2024 |
State v. Spangler
green
2 sentences2024Consequently, “‘when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness’s refusal to answer is justified.’” State v. Barton, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-23-22, 2024-Ohio-1417, ¶ 47 , quoting State v. Spangler, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16-CA-12, 2017-Ohio-268, ¶ 30 . {¶45} Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Bender’s refusal to answer was not justified. 2017Fairfield No. 16-CA-12, 2017-Ohio-268, ¶ 30 , citing Arnold, 2016-Ohio-1595 at ¶ 45 , citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951). | 2 | 2017–2024 |
Minnesota v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2014Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). {¶30} In his second assignment of error, Turner argues that the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 352 , 2000-Ohio- 190, 731 N.E.2d 662 , reversed on other grounds 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 12521 when Moore invoked the Fifth Amendment and deprived him of a fair trial. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a co 2014Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). {¶30} In his second assignment of error, Turner argues that the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 352 , 2000-Ohio- 190, 731 N.E.2d 662 , reversed on other grounds 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 12521 when Moore invoked the Fifth Amendment and deprived him of a fair trial. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a co | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Lefkowitz v. Turley
green
2 sentences2014Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). {¶30} In his second assignment of error, Turner argues that the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 352 , 2000-Ohio- 190, 731 N.E.2d 662 , reversed on other grounds 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 12521 when Moore invoked the Fifth Amendment and deprived him of a fair trial. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a co 2014Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). {¶30} In his second assignment of error, Turner argues that the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 352 , 2000-Ohio- 190, 731 N.E.2d 662 , reversed on other grounds 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 12521 when Moore invoked the Fifth Amendment and deprived him of a fair trial. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a co | 2 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Barton
green
1 sentence2024Consequently, “‘when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness’s claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness’s refusal to answer is justified.’” State v. Barton, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-23-22, 2024-Ohio-1417, ¶ 47 , quoting State v. Spangler, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16-CA-12, 2017-Ohio-268, ¶ 30 . {¶45} Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Bender’s refusal to answer was not justified. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Goff
green
1 sentence2017Although the right against testimonial compulsion provides protection to the accused, "it also applies to witnesses who would incriminate themselves by giving responses to questions posed to them." Id. {¶ 19} "The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a court may not rely upon the witness's claim alone, but has a duty to determine whether the witness's refusal to answer is justified." State v. Spangler, 5th Dist. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ohio v. Reiner
green
1 sentence2014Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). {¶30} In his second assignment of error, Turner argues that the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 352 , 2000-Ohio- 190, 731 N.E.2d 662 , reversed on other grounds 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 12521 when Moore invoked the Fifth Amendment and deprived him of a fair trial. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a co | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Reiner
red
2 sentences2014Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). {¶30} In his second assignment of error, Turner argues that the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 352 , 2000-Ohio- 190, 731 N.E.2d 662 , reversed on other grounds 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 12521 when Moore invoked the Fifth Amendment and deprived him of a fair trial. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a co 2014Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 , 94 S.Ct. 316 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). {¶30} In his second assignment of error, Turner argues that the trial court failed to follow the procedure set forth in State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St. 3d 342, 352 , 2000-Ohio- 190, 731 N.E.2d 662 , reversed on other grounds 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 12521 when Moore invoked the Fifth Amendment and deprived him of a fair trial. {¶31} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a witness asserts a privilege against self-incrimination, a co | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.