Legal Opinion
State v. Milligan
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 30, 1988No. 87-646PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
I
Appellant contends that the interception and clandestine recording of his telephone conversation with his attorney violated his right to counsel in contravention of Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This court has previously observed that the right to counsel afforded by Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution is comparable to but independent of similar guarantees provided by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Ford v. State (1929), 121 Ohio St. 292, 295, 168 N.E. 139, 140. Implicit within…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Weatherford v. BurseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Lanza v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. LevyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State v. Osie (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. PecardCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- Dobbins v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Haworth v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. LucasOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.