Legal Opinion
City of Toledo v. Dietz
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 30, 1965No. 38753PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
Appellant claims that he was compelled to he a witness against himself; that he was denied “due process” and assistance of counsel, contrary to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and that he was denied the protection of Section 2935.14 of the Revised Code, which provides in part:
“If the person arrested is unable to offer sufficient bail * * * he shall * * * be speedily permitted facilities to communicate with an attorney at law of his own choice, or to communicate with at least one relative or other person for the purpose of obtaining counsel…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Rogers v. RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Payne v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Malinski v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Stroble v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. WoodardsOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- McNulty v. CurryOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- City of Dayton v. NugentCity of Dayton Municipal Court · 1970
- State v. MeyersMiamisburg Municipal Court · 1978
- Jackson v. StateGirard Municipal Court · 1970