Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

Today the Supreme Court of the United States held that attaching a GPS device on a vehicle and using that GPS device to monitor the movements of the vehicle constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. Read the decision in United States v. Jones, here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the New Mexico Supreme Court because, "As a rule, if an out-of-court statement is testimonial in nature, it may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable and the accused has had a prior opportunity to confront that witness." A prosecutor in a DWI case called an analyst to testify about work another analyst did on a blood sample which they used to prove the defendant was driving while intoxicated. The defendant objected. Failure to call the analyst who actually worked on the case was a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Read the decision here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

"Knock, knock."
"Who's there?"
"The police."
"The police who?"

(Noises start supposedly coming from inside the residence that sound like someone is frantically trying to dispose of contraband because the police knocked on their door.)

"The police who are going to break down your door because once we announced the police were at your door, you started making sounds in there like you were destroying evidence. Therefore, you created exigent circumstances and an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and anything we see in plain view once we are get in there will be used as evidence against you at your trial."

Read the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct.1849, here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

In Edwards v. Arizona (1981), 451 U.S. 477, at 484-485, the Supreme Court of the United States said that when a suspect properly asserts his right to counsel before or during custodial interrogation pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, "a valid waiver of [his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation] cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his [Miranda] rights." The cops' only hope would be that the defendant changes his mind and initiates further communication with them. Id. at 484-485.

But today the Supreme Court of the United States put a cap on that protection of the defendant because acquiring "voluntary confessions" is an "unmitigated good" that is "essential to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law." In Maryland v. Shatzer (2010), 559 U.S. ___, the SCOTUS said the prohibition on further police attempts to interrogate a suspect like Edwards lasts for just fourteen days. The Justices figure that once the suspect is released from the "Miranda custody" and returns to his "normal life" for fourteen days, the "protective umbrella" of Edwards has served its purpose and the suspect is again fair game.

This is true even for those who are imprisoned based on a previous conviction. The SCOTUS reasoned that a prisoner is not constantly subject to Miranda-type custody when they are living their "normal life" in the general prison population. An inmate is only subject to "Miranda custody" or "interrogative custody" when they are "removed from the general prison population and taken to a separate location for questioning." Once they are released into the general population again, they are living their "normal lives" and the State can try to interrogate the "prisoner suspect" every fourteen days until the prisoner quits asserting his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation.