statement after privilege (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

statement after privilege in Ohio

6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2013 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Escobedo v. Illinoisgreen
scotus · 1964 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, 490, n. 14 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Miranda v. Arizona green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

2001Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” (Emphasis added.) Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-474 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 723 .

2001Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” (Emphasis added.) Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-474 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 723 .

31977–2001
Michigan v. Mosley green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

2013Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” Miranda at 473-474 . {¶ 18} In Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), the United States Supreme Court held that the admissibility of incriminating statements obtained after a person in police custody has initially decided to remain silent and not answer questions depends upon whether his or her right to cut off questioning was “scrupulously honored” by police.

2013Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” Miranda at 473-474 . {¶ 18} In Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 , 96 S.Ct. 321 , 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), the United States Supreme Court held that the admissibility of incriminating statements obtained after a person in police custody has initially decided to remain silent and not answer questions depends upon whether his or her right to cut off questioning was “scrupulously honored” by police.

22007–2013

Where else courts name it

CA 24 (1968–2021) FL 11 (1977–2018) MI 9 (1974–2019) TX 9 (1976–2009) OH 6 (1975–2013) ME 6 (1981–2008) IL 6 (1976–2019) NY 6 (1978–2007) IA 5 (1969–2006) AL 5 (1977–1999) AZ 5 (1972–1995) PA 5 (1972–2011) MA 4 (1978–2009) NJ 4 (1986–2008) MO 4 (1980–2016) NM 4 (2000–2016) CT 4 (1986–2007) NE 4 (1980–2003) OR 3 (1978–2018) TN 3 (1989–2022) WA 3 (1989–2024) LA 3 (1971–1986) DC 3 (1981–2015) VA 3 (2001–2006) MS 3 (1978–2016) MD 3 (1969–1980) OK 2 (1983–2026) NH 2 (1992–2002) ID 2 (1976–2020) NC 2 (1981–2016) WI 2 (1983–1990) KY 2 (2013–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check