witness at the suppression hearing in Ohio

2023See, e.g., State v. Hill, 90 Ohio St.3d 571 , 573, 740 N.E.2d 282 , 2001-Ohio-20 , citing State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402 , 377 N.E.2d 500 . {¶69} As to the issue of not calling Ms. Williams as a witness at the suppression hearing, based on her original statements to law enforcement about Appellant, sound trial tactics may have supported the decision to not call her.

2023See, e.g., State v. Hill, 90 Ohio St.3d 571 , 573, 740 N.E.2d 282 , 2001-Ohio-20 , citing State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402 , 377 N.E.2d 500 . {¶69} As to the issue of not calling Ms. Williams as a witness at the suppression hearing, based on her original statements to law enforcement about Appellant, sound trial tactics may have supported the decision to not call her.

2023Strickland at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ; State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2000-Ohio-448 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000). {¶67} Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to interview Miranda Williams and for not calling her as a witness at the suppression hearing. {¶68} As stated by Appellee in their brief, the record is silent as to whether trial counsel interviewed Ms. Williams.

2023Strickland at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ; State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2000-Ohio-448 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000). {¶67} Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to interview Miranda Williams and for not calling her as a witness at the suppression hearing. {¶68} As stated by Appellee in their brief, the record is silent as to whether trial counsel interviewed Ms. Williams.

2023Strickland at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ; State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2000-Ohio-448 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000). {¶67} Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to interview Miranda Williams and for not calling her as a witness at the suppression hearing. {¶68} As stated by Appellee in their brief, the record is silent as to whether trial counsel interviewed Ms. Williams.

2023Strickland at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ; State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2000-Ohio-448 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000). {¶67} Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to interview Miranda Williams and for not calling her as a witness at the suppression hearing. {¶68} As stated by Appellee in their brief, the record is silent as to whether trial counsel interviewed Ms. Williams.

2023Strickland at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ; State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2000-Ohio-448 , 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000). {¶67} Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to interview Miranda Williams and for not calling her as a witness at the suppression hearing. {¶68} As stated by Appellee in their brief, the record is silent as to whether trial counsel interviewed Ms. Williams.

2005In support, appellant argues his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated because Chapman did not testify at trial or at the suppression hearing. 3 Appellant relies on the United States Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , in which the court held that out-of-court testimonial hearsay statements by a witness who did not testify at trial were inadmissible against the defendant unless the witness was unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

2005In support, appellant argues his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated because Chapman did not testify at trial or at the suppression hearing. 3 Appellant relies on the United States Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , in which the court held that out-of-court testimonial hearsay statements by a witness who did not testify at trial were inadmissible against the defendant unless the witness was unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

1999State v. Clark (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 308 , 311-312 .

1997As a result, affiant contends that the judge presiding at the hearing will be asked to assess Judge Hogan’s professionalism, competency, credibility, and truthfulness and, perhaps, determine whether Judge Hogan may have participated in the coercion of allegedly involuntary statements made by the affiant. {¶ 5} In re Disqualification of Morrissey (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1252 , 674 N.E.2d 360 , involved a post-conviction relief proceeding in which the defendant alleged that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at trial.