Court of Common Pleas
|
|
- Gary Sutton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Motion No NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Court of Common Pleas MOTION TO... March 7, :10 By: SEAN KILBANE Confirmation Nbr THE STATE OF OHIO CR A vs. RAJDEEP BISWAS Judge: MICHAEL P. SHAUGHNESSY Pages Filed: 8
2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF OHIO, ) CASE NO.: CR Plaintiff ) ) ) JUDGE MICHAEL SHAUGHNESSY vs. ) ) STATE S MOTION TO DENY RAJDEEP BISWAS, ) DEFENSE COUNSEL S MOTION TO ) SUPPRESS Defendant. ) Now comes the State of Ohio, by and through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael C. O Malley, and his undersigned assistant, Sean M. Kilbane, and hereby moves this Honorable Court deny Defense Counsel s Motion to Suppress. The grounds in support of this motion are set forth in the attached Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL C. O MALLEY By: Sean M. Kilbane ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street - 9th Floor Cleveland, Ohio (216) /7/2017 1
3 I. Statement of Case On July 29, 2016, Officers with the Cleveland Division of Police responded to 1801 East 12th Street in Cleveland, OH (hereinafter apartment complex ) in connection with a burglary. Officers knew the Defendant, Rajdeep Biswas (hereinafter Defendant ), was still on scene, along with the Victim. When Officers arrived, the Victim was in the lobby of the apartment complex, and the Defendant was located in a back office inside the building. The Defendant was placed in this back office by security guards and managers associated with the apartment complex. While one Officer spoke with the victim in the lobby, the other Officer went into the back office to engage with the Defendant. The Officer entered the office and was greeted by the Defendant who stated hello. The Officer responded with what s going on? After this brief exchange, the Defendant begins to speak for a period of over two minutes. During those two minutes, the only question posed by the Officer was did you used to live with her (victim)? During these voluntary statements, the Defendant is standing, while the Officer is seated. The door to the office is open. During two separate periods, more officers enter the back office. During these encounters, Officers ask more direct questions about what transpired just prior to police arrival. At this point, Officers are trying to put together a coherent version of events. The Defendant again agrees to volunteer information. During all encounters with officers, the dialogue between the Officers and the Defendant are conversational. The Defendant was subsequently arrested and booked. After his arrest, Detective Michael Cozart with the Cleveland Division of Police mirandizes the Defendant and asks if he wishes to make a statement. The Defendant says he does not wish to make a statement, but does have questions for the Detective, such as the nature of the charges. The Detective subsequently tells the Defendant that he is going to seize his cell phone, in which the Defendant responds I m fucked. 2
4 Defense Counsel previously filed a motion to suppress statements made by the Defendant. In Defense Counsel s motion, he asks this Court to exclude all statements made by the Defendant on July 29, However, Defense Counsel limits his arguments to any statements made by the Defendant at the apartment complex on July 29, If Defense Counsel argues at the motion hearing that statements made to Detective Cozart should also be suppressed, the State reserves the right to argue that statements made to the Detective should also be admissible. For purposes of this written response, the State will focus solely on the statements made by the Defendant at the apartment complex on July 29, II. Law and Argument A. Custody In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that custodial interrogation constituted compulsion within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. To protect the privilege in this context, the Court required the reading of the now familiar Miranda warnings -- that he has the right to remain silent, anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. Miranda does not require, however, any additional warnings beyond what has been stated. State v. Kimmie, 2013-Ohio-4034, f 1 (8th Dist. Ct. App.) In re Smalley, 62 Ohio App.3d 435 (8th Dist. Ct. App. 1989), the 8th District held that a person is considered to be in custody when his/her freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest. The Court should look at the surrounding circumstances surrounding the police encounter, and whether a reasonable person would have felt that he was at liberty to terminate the interview and leave. In re C. W., 2013 Ohio 5426, f 30 (8th Dist. Ct. App.). In the absence of a formal arrest, Miranda warnings are only required where there has been such a restrain on a person s freedom of movement as to render him in custody. State v. 3
5 Maurer, 15 Ohio St. 3d 239, 256 (Ohio 1984). In looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Court must look at whether the officer (or officers) involved were overbearing or intimidating. See State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St. 3d 493 (Ohio 2003). The Defendant was not in custody while he was being interrogated at the apartment complex. First, the Defendant was not under formal arrest prior to making any statements to police officers, so the Court should look at the surrounding circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person would have believed they were free to leave. The Defendant s initial encounter with the first Officer who approached him was the opposite of confrontational or coercive. The Officer enters the back office and takes a seat while the Defendant remains standing. The Officer does not even have an opportunity to begin asking any questions because the Defendant immediately begins to tell his side of the story. While the Officer is seated, the Defendant is facing an open door. He was never told that he was to remain in the room. The conversation between himself and the first Officer was conversational. It is also important to note that the Defendant was not placed into the back office by Cleveland Police; but rather, was escorted to the back office by apartment security and managers. This is unlike a scenario where Officers escort a suspect to a room or police station. The Defendant stayed in this particular location until Officers arrived on the scene, and he began to openly and voluntarily relay information to the Officers. Examining all these circumstances, this Court should find that the Defendant was not in custody at the time of his encounter with Officers. b. Interrogation The United States Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court have defined interrogation as express questioning, i.e., any words or actions on the part of the police (other than normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect or the functional equivalent of such conduct by police. State v. Tucker, 81 Ohio St.3d 434, 436 (1998). [T]he special procedural safeguards 4
6 outlined in Miranda are required not where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation. Interrogation, as conceptualized in the Miranda opinion, must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself. R.I. v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980). The procedural safeguards in Miranda do not protect against an unsolicited and spontaneous statement made by a suspect. State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St. 3d 353 (Ohio 2014). Moreover, Miranda does not hamper a law enforcement officer s ability to conduct its fact finding function. As such, the Court in Miranda held that general on-the-scene questioning is not affected by the Miranda decision. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477. "In the cases that have held general on-the-scene questioning to be a 'custodial interrogation' the courts found an additional element of coercion not normally present in general on-the-scene inquiries or found that the police investigation had focused on the accused. State v. Carter, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 1959, *14 (8th Dist. Ct. of Appeals). Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influence is, of course, admissible in evidence. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. Thus, it is the 'compelling influence' to confess which renders the confession inadmissible if made while in custody and in the absence of warnings or of counsel. In re Potts, 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 9041, at *10-11 (8th Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 1978). While the exclusionary principle relates to statements induced by law enforcement officers by interrogation or otherwise, it is not applicable to statements originating by the un-induced choice of the defendant. The exclusionary principle has been developed as a sanction imposing restraint on law enforcement officials. The principle is not designed to protect a defendant from his own words freely and voluntarily given without inducement by law enforcement officials. Id. at *18. If all the other circumstances surrounding the confession indicate that it is made voluntarily, the 5
7 confession is admissible even though the police mislead the defendant by suggesting that they received certain information. State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St. 3d 61, 64 (1994). In deciding whether a defendant's confession is involuntarily induced, the court sho uld consider the totality of the circumstances. State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31, (1976). However, police overreaching is a prerequisite to a finding of involuntariness. Evidence of use by the interrogators of an inherently coercive tactic (e.g., physical abuse, threats, deprivation of food, medical treatment, or sleep) will trigger the totality of the circumstances analysis. State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261 (1988). Thus, at the threshold, Defense Counsel must show that the Officers used an inherently coercive tactic on the Defendant. Defense Counsel makes the argument that the Defendant did not volunteer any information. Rather, his statements were in direct responses to questions posed by law enforcement officers. An evidentiary hearing on this issue will directly contradict this statement. When Officers arrive on scene of the incident, one Officer goes into the back office of the apartment complex where Defendant is located. The Officer enters the office and says what s going on? It is important for the Court to view the video of this encounter because the Officer s statement can reasonably be interpreted as the Officer greeting the Defendant. The Officer says what s going on? after the Defendant greets the Officer with a hello. And immediately after this exchange the Defendant volunteers a little over two minutes of unsolicited statements about why he was at the apartment complex, the nature of the Defendant and Victim s relationship, and some facts about what occurred inside of the apartment. This encounter between the Defendant and the Officer is not what Miranda was trying to guard against. Unsolicited statements from a suspect are not protected by the Miranda procedural safeguards. Moreover, nothing from this encounter suggests that anything the Officer did what likely to elicit an incriminating response. There is no evidence of compulsion. The statements are made in a back office, with one officer, and the Defendant is volunteering the information. 6
8 Furthermore, Defense may argue that when more officers begin to enter the back office, there is a level of coercion which should trigger Miranda warnings. However, every encounter made by the Officers this day were general on-the-scene questioning. At the time, Officers get information about a potential burglary. One officer begins to speak with the Victim, and the other Officer begins to speak with the Defendant. The one Officer who first begins to speak with the Defendant begins to apprise other Officers about what the Defendant has told him, such as the statement he told me that she (Victim) let him in. Clearly, Officers were trying to initially untangle a confusing situation and gather all necessary facts. As such, the Defendant was not subject to interrogation on the date in question. III. Conclusion Based on the above arguments, the Defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation. The Defendant was neither in custody, nor was he subject to interrogation. Both custody and interrogation must be present in order for statements to be suppressed. Both are missing in this case. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL C. O MALLEY Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Sean M. Kilbane ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street - 9th Floor Cleveland, Ohio (216)
9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Response to Motion to Suppress was delivered via CCPO portal to Jerome Emoff., Attorney for Defendant on this 7rd day of March Sean M. Kilbane ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 8
No. 112,329 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellant. vs. NORMAN C. BRAMLETT Defendant-Appellee
FLED No. 112,329 JAN 14 2015 HEATHER t. SfvilTH CLERK OF APPELLATE COURTS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellant vs. NORMAN C. BRAMLETT Defendant-Appellee BRIEF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cr-00225-CKK Document 26 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STEPHEN JIN-WOO KIM Defendant. CASE NO. 1:10-CR-225
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. The indictment. Defendant James Sparks-Henderson is charged with the November 21, 2014, aggravated
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff, -vs- JAMES SPARKS-HENDERSON, Defendant. ) CASE NO. CR 16 605330 ) ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) ) JUDGMENT ENTRY DENYING )
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHTO. The indictment
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHTO THE STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff, :VS- JAMES SPARKS-HENDERSON Defendant. ) ) JUDGE JOHN P. O'DONNELL ) ) JUDGMENT ENTRY DENYING ) THE DEFENDANT S ) MOTION
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hall, 2014-Ohio-1731.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100413 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBIN R. HALL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 28, 2017 v No. 335272 Ottawa Circuit Court MAX THOMAS PRZYSUCHA, LC No. 16-040340-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationDISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J.
DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J. I respectfully dissent. Although the standard of review for whether police conduct constitutes interrogation is not entirely clear, it appears that Hawai i applies
More informationCase 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:08-cr-00040-SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal Action No. 08-40-SLR
More informationBERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT. DATE ISSUED: February 28, 2005 GENERAL ORDER I-18 PURPOSE
SUBJECT: INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATIONS PURPOSE 1 - The purpose of this General Order is to establish procedures to be used in interviews and interrogations. DEFINITION 2 - For the purpose of this Order,
More informationSAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE DATE: MARCH 1, 2013 NUMBER: SUBJECT: RELATED POLICY: ORIGINATING DIVISION: 4.03 LEGAL ADMONITION PROCEDURES N/A INVESTIGATIONS II NEW PROCEDURE: PROCEDURAL CHANGE:
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,589 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, EDGAR HUGH EAKIN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,589 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. EDGAR HUGH EAKIN, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Finney District Court;
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Michailides, 2013-Ohio-5316.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99682 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOHN A. MICHAILIDES
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2006 v No. 259193 Washtenaw Circuit Court ERIC JOHN BOLDISZAR, LC No. 02-001366-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 3:16-cr JJB-EWD Document 26 05/15/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:16-cr-00130-JJB-EWD Document 26 05/15/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : CRIMINAL NO. 16-130-JJB-EWD versus : : JORDAN HAMLETT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. L Trial Court No.
[Cite as State v. Kohli, 2004-Ohio-4841.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-03-1205 Trial Court No. CR-2002-3231 v. Jamey
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Sneed, 166 Ohio App.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1749.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, Appellant, v. SNEED, Appellee. : : : : :
More informationIn this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court considers whether the district court
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationv. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: ***** Case Number: **** Attorneys for Defendant:
County Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado Lindsey Flanigan Courthouse, Room 160 520 W. Colfax Ave. Denver, CO 80204 Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: *****
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION WILLOCKS, HAROLD W. L., Judge of the Superior Court.
2011 WL 921644 (V.I.Super.) Judges and Attorneys Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. PEOPLE OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS,
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Waukesha County: v. Case No. 2007CF Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress Statement
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Waukesha County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2007CF001421 Joshua DeWitz, Defendant. Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress Statement Now comes the above-named
More information2017 CO 92. The supreme court holds that a translated Miranda warning, which stated that if
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More information2017 CO 100. In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court concludes that the conversation
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Cooper, 2012-Ohio-355.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96635 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. BRANDON COOPER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 07:21:41 2014-KA-01098-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2014-KA-01098-COA SHERMAN BILLIE, SR. APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc. v. ) No. SC APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY Honorable Jack A.L.
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc ) Opinion issued December 6, 2016 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC95613 ) DAVID K. HOLMAN, ) ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY
More information3:00 A.M. THE MAGISTRATE THE JUVENILE THE STATEMENT KEEPING IT LEGAL
THE MAGISTRATE THE JUVENILE THE STATEMENT KEEPING IT LEGAL Kameron D. Johnson E:mail Kameron.johnson@co.travis.tx.us Presented by Ursula Hall, Judge, City of Houston 3:00 A.M. Who are Magistrates? U.S.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO MARIO COOPER
[Cite as State v. Cooper, 2009-Ohio-2583.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91566 STATE OF OHIO vs. MARIO COOPER PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Griffith, 2012-Ohio-2628.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97366 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. RICKY C. GRIFFITH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Coston, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) O P I N I O N. Rendered on August 3, 2006
[Cite as State v. Coston, 168 Ohio App.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-3961.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT The State of Ohio, : Appellant, : No. 05AP-905 v. : (C.P.C. No. 05CR02-919) Coston,
More informationNo. 05SA251, People v. Wood Miranda Interrogation - Due Process Right to Counsel Voluntariness
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm Opinions are also posted
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RECOMMENDED DECISION RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS (ECF NO. 19)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) 1:13-cr-00021-JAW ) RANDOLPH LEO GAMACHE, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DECISION RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS (ECF NO. 19) Randolph
More informationSUBJECT: Sample Interview & Interrogation Policy
TO: FROM: All Members Education Committee SUBJECT: Sample Interview & Interrogation Policy DATE: February 2011 Attached is a SAMPLE Interview & Interrogation policy that may be of use to your department.
More informationSay What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law
Say What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law POPPI RITACCO Attorney Advisor / Senior Instructor State and Local Training Division Federal Law Enforcement
More informationCase 3:07-cr KES Document 15 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 3:07-cr-30063-KES Document 15 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF LAW
More informationBALTIMORE CITY SCHOOLS Baltimore School Police Force MIRANDA WARNINGS
MIRANDA WARNINGS This Directive contains the following numbered sections: I. Directive II. Purpose III. Definitions IV. General V. Juveniles VI. Effective Date I. DIRECTIVE It is the intent of the Baltimore
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 10-00320-14-CR-W-DGK ) RAFAEL ZAMORA, ) ) Defendant. ) GOVERNMENT
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF000567
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2008CF000567 Miguel Ayala, and Carlos Gonzales, Defendant. Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized as a Result
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Houser, 2010-Ohio-4246.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93179 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOSEPH HOUSER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 131 March 25, 2015 41 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT DARNELL BOYD, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 201026332; A151157
More informationMiranda Rights. Interrogations and Confessions
Miranda Rights Interrogations and Confessions Brae and Nathan Agenda Objective Miranda v. Arizona Application of Miranda How Subjects Apply Miranda Miranda Exceptions Police Deception Reflection Objective
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD ALLEN JOHNSON, Petitioner, MICAEL D. CREWS, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA p CASE NO. 12-2464. RICHARD ALLEN JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. MICAEL D. CREWS, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent. REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE FOR WRIT OF
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Knuckles, 2011-Ohio-4242.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96078 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KIMMY D. KNUCKLES
More informationConstitutional Law - Right to Counsel
Louisiana Law Review Volume 27 Number 1 December 1966 Constitutional Law - Right to Counsel Thomas R. Blum Repository Citation Thomas R. Blum, Constitutional Law - Right to Counsel, 27 La. L. Rev. (1966)
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. The State of New Hampshire. Thomas Auger Docket No. 01-S-388, 389 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STRAFFORD, SS. SUPERIOR COURT The State of New Hampshire v. Thomas Auger Docket No. 01-S-388, 389 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS The defendant is charged with one count
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 STATE OF MARYLAND BENJAMIN PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1694 September Term, 2016 STATE OF MARYLAND v. BENJAMIN PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ Nazarian, Arthur, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
More informationNAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas ANSWERS Electronically Filed: September 26,2016 11:12 By: SAMANTHA A. VAJSKOP 0087837 Confirmation
More informationIN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 12 CR 110
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 12 CR 110 v. : Judge Berens CHARLES W. FURNISS, : ENTRY Overruling in Part and Sustaining in Part Defendant
More informationHAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO State of Ohio : CASE NO.: PLAINTIFF : JUDGE: -vs- : DEFENDANT : : MOTION TO DISMISS Now comes Defendant,, by and through counsel, and hereby moves the Court to dismiss the charge
More informationCase 1:10-cr SS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:10-cr-00136-SS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUSTIN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. CAUSE NO. A-10-CR-136 (SS) PAUL EDWARD COPELAND GOVERNMENT S RESPONSE
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION II STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ) Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Marion County - Hannibal vs. ) Cause No. ) JN, ) Honorable Rachel
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1063-2016 v. : : KNOWLEDGE FRIERSON, : SUPPRESSION Defendant : Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion
More informationA digest of twenty one (21) significant US Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda
From Miranda v. Arizona to Howes v. Fields A digest of twenty one (21) significant US Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda (1968 2012) In Miranda v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court rendered one of
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Geary District
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Worley, 2011-Ohio-2779.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94590 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. PEREZ WORLEY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For plaintiff-appellee: : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION KEITH RICKS : For defendant-appellant:
[Cite as State v. Ricks, 2004-Ohio-6913.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84500 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION KEITH RICKS :
More information2012 CO 55 No. 12SA101, People v. Pittman, Miranda suppression custodial interrogation totality of the circumstances
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationSTATE OF OHIO JEFFREY SIMS
[Cite as State v. Sims, 2009-Ohio-2132.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91397 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY SIMS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationNAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas OTHER Electronically Filed: September 26,2016 10:04 By: DANIEL J. MYERS 0087909 Confirmation
More informationSTATE OF OHIO MARWAN ALHAJJEH
[Cite as State v. Alhajjeh, 2010-Ohio-3179.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93077 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MARWAN ALHAJJEH
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO: CR A ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) RAFAEL LABOY ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO: CR 12 566158 A Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs. RAFAEL LABOY JOURNAL ENTRY Defendant. John P. O Donnell, J.: STATEMENT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, ) CASE NOS. CR 14 588664-A, ) CR 14 591898-B, CR-15-596253-B ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE SHANNON M. GALLAGHER ) vs. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM WATERS
More informationCLASS 1 READING & BRIEFING. Matthew L.M. Fletcher Monday August 20, :00 to 11:30 am
CLASS 1 READING & BRIEFING Matthew L.M. Fletcher Monday August 20, 2011 9:00 to 11:30 am Intro to Fletcher s Teaching Style 2 Pure Socratic? Lecture? Pure Socratic 3 Professor: Mr. A. What am I thinking
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON DECEMBER 1998 SESSION STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 02C CC-00210
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON DECEMBER 1998 SESSION FILED STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9807-CC-00210 Appellee, * DYER COUNTY April 23, 1999 VS. * Hon. R. Lee Moore, Jr.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06 CR-19-R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. STEVEN D. GREEN DEFENDANT UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0570-11 GENOVEVO SALINAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY Womack, J., delivered
More informationInterrogation under the Fifth Amendment: Arizona v. Mauro
SMU Law Review Volume 41 1987 Interrogation under the Fifth Amendment: Arizona v. Mauro Eleshea Dice Lively Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Eleshea
More informationFINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GERRILYN G. BRILL, United States Magistrate Judge.
Slip Copy, 2011 WL 4479211 (N.D.Ga.) Motions, Pleadings and Filings Judges and Attorneys Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
More information... O P I N I O N ...
[Cite as State v. Keaton, 2007-Ohio-5663.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 21780 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case
More informationSuperior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury. STATE of Connecticut v. Joseph MITCHELL. No. UWYCR Feb. 3, 2011.
Not Reported in A.3d, 2011 WL 726113 (Conn.Super.) Judges and Attorneys Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING. PRESCOTT, J. Superior Court
More informationDefining & Interpreting Custodial Interrogation. Alexander Lindvall 2013 Adviser: K.M. Waggoner, Ph.D., J.D. Iowa State University
Defining & Interpreting Custodial Interrogation Alexander Lindvall 2013 Adviser: K.M. Waggoner, Ph.D., J.D. Iowa State University The Premises The Fourteenth Amendment: No State shall deprive any person
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Hon. Marianne O. Battani
2:17-cr-20595-MOB-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 10/25/17 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 203 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Case No. 17-CR-20595
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2003 USA v. Mercedes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 00-2563 Follow this and additional
More information2009 VT 75. No On Appeal from v. District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit. Michael M. Christmas March Term, 2009
State v. Christmas (2008-303) 2009 VT 75 [Filed 24-Jul-2009] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
More informationNO. FIELD(MAT_Cause No) STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. VS. FIELD(MAT_Court) JUDICIAL. TOUPPER(FIELD(MAT_Client Name)) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
NO. FIELD(MAT_Cause No) STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. FIELD(MAT_Court) JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOUPPER(FIELD(MAT_Client Name)) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO SUPPRESS WRITTEN OR ORAL STATEMENTS OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY W. MEEKS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grundy County No. 3948 Buddy Perry,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Kennedy, 2013-Ohio-4243.] STATE OF OHIO v. Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICK L. KENNEDY Defendant-Appellant IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY Appellate
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2015 v No. 327393 Wayne Circuit Court ROKSANA GABRIELA SIKORSKI, LC No. 15-001059-FJ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1356 JUNIOR JOSEPH, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 3, 2010 Appeal
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Spoon, 2012-Ohio-4052.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97742 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LEROY SPOON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 16, 2016 v No. 328740 Mackinac Circuit Court RICHARD ALLAN MCKENZIE, JR., LC No. 15-003602 Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Maddox, 2013-Ohio-1544.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98484 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ADRIAN D. MADDOX
More informationUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Meiesha SHARP, Defendant.
Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson Reuters. If you wish to check the currency of this case by using KeyCite on Westlaw, you may do so by visiting www.westlaw.com. Slip Copy, 2013 WL 6487499
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Belle, 2012-Ohio-3808.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97652 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES BELLE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Van Horn, 2013-Ohio-1986.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98751 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JADELL VAN HORN
More information[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : OPINION. MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: January 20, 1999
[J-216-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. ANTHONY PERSIANO, Appellant Appellee 60 E.D. Appeal Docket 1997 Appeal from the Order of the Superior
More informationCourt of Common Pleas
NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas ANSWER OF... March 16, 2017 11:31 By: STEPHEN J. YEARGIN 0078101 Confirmation Nbr. 1014880
More informationSTATE OF OHIO THOMAS JENKINS
[Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2009-Ohio-235.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91100 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. THOMAS JENKINS
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010 ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1978 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 28, 2010 Appeal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JUNIOR JOSEPH, ) ) Appellee/Petitioner, ) ) 5th DCA Case No. 5D09-1356 ) ) Supreme Court Case No. SC11-179 STATE OF FLORIDA,) ) Appellant/Respondent. ) ) APPEAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Brunty, 2014-Ohio-4307.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2014-A-0007
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN Record No June 9, 2005
PRESENT: All the Justices RODNEY L. DIXON, JR. v. Record No. 041952 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN Record No. 041996 June 9, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. McDonald, 2011-Ohio-1964.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95651 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CASSANDRA MCDONALD
More informationASHEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY MANUAL
Chapter: 9 Criminal Investigations Original Issue: 9/1/1992 Policy: Last Revision: 6/15/2018 Previously: 3001 C.I.D. Administration CONTENTS INTRODUCTION POLICY STATEMENT DEFINITIONS RULES AND PROCEDURES
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ANDRE CONNER
[Cite as State v. Conner, 2010-Ohio-4353.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93953 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ANDRE CONNER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK People v. White 1 (decided March 20, 2008) Gary White was convicted of second-degree murder. 2 He later appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department, claiming that
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,570. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Gary L. Clingman, District Judge
0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that
More informationThe Law of Interrogation in North Carolina
The Law of Interrogation in North Carolina Jeff Welty December 2011 1. Voluntariness a. Generally. A suspect s statement is voluntary if it is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice
More informationSTATE OF OHIO CHARLES WHITE
[Cite as State v. White, 2009-Ohio-4371.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92056 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CHARLES WHITE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCase 1:13-cr GAO Document 359 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10200-GAO Document 359 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. No. 13-CR-10200-GAO DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV DEFENDANT S REPLY
More informationSTATE OF OHIO JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER
[Cite as State v. Friedlander, 2008-Ohio-2812.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90084 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER
More information