Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Arnold (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 2016No. 2014-0718Published

1DissentO’Donnell, J.

{¶ 77} Respectfully, I dissent.

{¶ 78} The trial court disregarded its duty to appraise the propriety of Lester Arnold’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, errantly compelled Lester to read aloud a statement he made concerning.his son, Jeffrey Arnold, the defendant, and then admitted the statement into evidence, thereby affecting Jeffrey’s rights.

{¶ 79} The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is confined “to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Temple v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1881
  3. State v. TaltyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Ex parte IrvineU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1896
  5. State v. ArnoldOhio Court of Appeals · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API