Legal Opinion
State v. Buchholz
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 9, 1984No. 83-1072PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C. J.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 478-479 [36 O.O.2d 237], the United States Supreme Court held:
“* * * [W]hen an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom * * * in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, *26* * * [h]e must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. * * * [UJnless and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Argersinger v. HamlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. MaurerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- City of Garfield Heights v. BrewerOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
- State v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 1987
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.