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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences2004See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 318 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (“[T]he dictates of Miranda and the goals of the Fifth Amendment proscription against use of compelled testimony are fully satisfied” in this case by “barring use of the unwarned statement” and “[n]o further purpose is served by imputing ‘taint’ to subsequent statements obtained pursuant to a voluntary and knowing waiver”). {¶ 35} For the foregoing reasons, we reject Dixon’s first proposition of law. 2004See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 318 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (“[T]he dictates of Miranda and the goals of the Fifth Amendment proscription against use of compelled testimony are fully satisfied” in this case by “barring use of the unwarned statement” and “[n]o further purpose is served by imputing ‘taint’ to subsequent statements obtained pursuant to a voluntary and knowing waiver”). {¶ 35} For the foregoing reasons, we reject Dixon’s first proposition of law. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Flynn
green
2 sentences2016In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778, 783 , 656 N.E.2d 737 . 2016In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778, 783 , 656 N.E.2d 737 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
1 sentence2011We hold today that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings.” Id. {¶64} The Court revisited this issue in Missouri v. Seibert (2004), 542 U.S. 600 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Godinez v. Moran
green
1 sentence2004Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. at 400 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2002The trial court found that: {¶ 64} "based upon the testimony of the officer and the statement that the Defendant appeared to know what she was doing, she was lucid, she gave accurate accounts of persons' names, telephone numbers, and other matters which she considered material in her statement, and the Court therefore finds that she could make a voluntary and knowing waiver of her Miranda Rights under those conditions." {¶ 65} This discussion, along with the court's discussion of each witness' testimony, shows that the trial court did consider the evidence and determined that the medications d | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2001Specifically, appellant claims that the second motion was untimely filed because it was submitted five days before the trial, the issue raised in it was also mentioned in the first motion, and "[n]othing new * * * was presented at the hearing * * *." In State v. Montgomery (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 410 , 413 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that an abuse of discretion "`connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. * * *' State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 * * *." The trial court has discretion to | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Montgomery
green
1 sentence2001Specifically, appellant claims that the second motion was untimely filed because it was submitted five days before the trial, the issue raised in it was also mentioned in the first motion, and "[n]othing new * * * was presented at the hearing * * *." In State v. Montgomery (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 410 , 413 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that an abuse of discretion "`connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. * * *' State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 * * *." The trial court has discretion to | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.