State v. Leach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.
{¶ 1} Today we are asked to decide whether a defendant’s pre-arrest silence may be used as substantive evidence of guilt in the state’s case-in-chief and whether a defendant’s post-arrest, post-Miranda assertion of his right to counsel may be used as substantive evidence of guilt in the state’s case-in-chief. For all of the reasons expressed below, we hold that use of a defendant’s pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt violates the Fifth Amendment, and we hold that the use of a defendant’s post-arrest, post -Miranda invocation of his right to counsel as substantive evidence of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by114 opinions
- State v. PowellOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. Graham (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- Girts v. YanaiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- State v. PlottOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
- Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Molina, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.