Legal Opinion

State v. Leach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 2004No. 2003-0053PublishedCited by 114 opinions

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

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. 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

  1. State v. PowellOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  2. State v. Graham (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  3. Girts v. YanaiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  4. State v. PlottOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Molina, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API