Ohio Supreme Court Rules Suspect’s Statements To Police Can Be Used In Prosecution

The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that statements made by a Hamilton County suspect during a police interview can be used in his prosecution.

In a 4 to 3 decision, the court found that the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court wrongly suppressed evidence obtained from Isiah Morris involving his alleged role in an April 2022 shooting.

Morris had been appointed an attorney, but later met with police, signed a written waiver to speak with them, and confessed to several crimes. Lower courts had ruled that the Ohio Constitution prevented Morris from being interviewed without a lawyer present.

Writing for the majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine said Ohio’s constitutional right to counsel provision applies to the right to a lawyer “in any trial, in any court,” and does not apply to a police interrogation before formal charges are filed.

The court also reviewed whether Morris later reinvoked his right to an attorney during the interview. The majority found that Morris’s comments did not meet the standard of an unambiguous and unequivocal request to speak with a lawyer.

Justices Joseph Deters, Daniel Hawkins, and Megan Shanahan joined DeWine’s opinion.

Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy dissented in part. She agreed that the Ohio Constitution did not require the statements to be suppressed, but argued the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the Sixth Amendment issue before it was addressed by the appeals court.

Kennedy also wrote that Morris did invoke his right to counsel during the interview. Justice Jennifer Brunner joined part of the dissent, and Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Jill Flagg Lanzinger, sitting for Justice Patrick Fischer, also joined Kennedy’s dissent.

The decision reverses the First District Court of Appeals and sends the case back for further proceedings.