FACTS:
In May 2023, Isaiah Morris was arrested in Cincinnati and jailed for multiple counts of felonious assault. The following morning, he was arraigned in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas; he was assigned counsel for that hearing, but was not able to confer with her privately. That afternoon, the Cincinnati Police Department read him a “Notification of Rights” form that stated that he had the right to talk to a lawyer, and that if he decided to answer questions “right now without a lawyer present,” he would have the right to stop answering at any time. He was asked to sign the Notification, attesting that he understood his rights; and he signed. The police then interrogated him for two hours without his lawyer present. Neither the form nor the police informed Morris that he had been assigned an attorney for purposes beyond his arraignment. Throughout the interrogation, he repeatedly asked confusedly, “I can’t talk to a lawyer?”
At his trial, Morris moved to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation as a violation of his rights under the U.S. Constitution and under his right to counsel provided in the Ohio Constitution. In his motion and at the suppression hearing, Morris argued that the right to counsel under the Ohio Constitution affords greater protections than the right under the United States Constitution. The trial court agreed, and suppressed his statements under the Ohio Constitution. The state appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision.
LEGAL THEORY:
The Ohio Constitution provides a right to counsel that is broader than the corresponding protection in the U.S. Constitution. In particular, when police interrogate a defendant for whom counsel has been appointed, but without that counsel present, they risk tricking the defendant into believing there is no lawyer available to help them, this could violate the right to counsel under the Ohio Constitution.
STATUS:
Appellant filed its appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio on December 19, 2023. Mr. Morris filed his Memorandum in Response to Jurisdiction on January 18, 2024 and the Court accepted the appeal on March 5. On March 8, Mr. Morris requested the recusal of Justice Deters, because he was the Hamilton County Prosecutor while this case was in the lower courts. That request was denied on March 12.
Appellant’s Merit brief was field on May 17, and a supporting amicus by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association was filed on May 20. Appellee obtained an extension and filed his merit brief on July 10, along with supporting amicus briefs from us, as well as the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, the Cuyahoga County Public Defender & Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Innocence Project. The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association filed a Reply amicus brief on July 17.
The parties await a decision.
