Submit by Email Print Form
State of Ohio
PLAINTIFF
:
:
CASE NO.:
JUDGE:
-vs- :
DEFENDANT
:
:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS STATEMENTS OBTAINED
IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Defendant , through counsel, respectfully moves this
Court to conduct and evidentiary hearing at which Defendant will demonstrate that Plaintiff’s agents violated his U.S. and Ohio constitutional rights when they obtained statements attributed to him.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

It is a long and well-established principle that alleged waivers of such fundamental constitutional rights as the right to counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination will be upheld only after careful inquiry into factual basis for the alleged waiver. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304
U.S. 458 (1938). Waivers of such constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing and intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 750 (1970). The State bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the accused was sufficiently aware of the consequences of what he was doing and that he knowingly and intelligently waived these vital constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
The question of whether the accused waived his right “is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979). Moreover, it is clear that courts
“must indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver.” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S.
387 (1977).
The test to determine whether a knowing and intelligent waiver was made rests on an inquiry into the totality of circumstances surrounding the interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. at
475-77. The question of waiver must be determined on “the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case.” Johnson , 304 U.S. at 464; Butler , 441 U.S. 369; Schneckloth v.
Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
Whether a confession is voluntary is an issue independent of whether there was “formal compliance with the requirements of Miranda.” State v. Chase, 55 Ohio St.2d 237, 246
(1978); State v. Kassow, 28 Ohio St.2d 141 (1971). The burden is on the prosecution to show that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the confession was voluntarily given. Bram v.
2

United States, 168 U.S. 532, 549 (1897); United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 546-47 (C.A. 6,
1977); State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31, 40-41 (1976), death penalty vacated, 438 U.S. 911
(1978). Psychological as well as physical coercion may render a confession involuntary. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 (1963).
An involuntary confession is inadmissible at trial. Bram, 168 U.S. 532 .
The admission into evidence of an involuntary confession deprives the defendant of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964). The standard by which voluntariness is to be judged is whether the confession was a “product of a rational intellect and free will.” Townsend, 372 U.S. 293 .
If a confession has been made voluntarily, any subsequent conviction cannot stand. Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181 (1952). confession was voluntarily given must take into account the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to: the age, mentality, and prior criminal experience of the accused; the length, intensity and frequency of interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation of mistreatment; and the existence of threat or inducement. Id. At 40-41. It follows that the physical and mental status of the person making the confession are critical aspects to be reviewed in determining if the confession was in fact made voluntarily.
Because this is a capital case, the constitutional issues implicated herein require heightened scrutiny in order to protect Defendant’s Ohio and Federal constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel, due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, VIII, IX, and XIV; Ohio Const. Art. I, §§ 1, 2, 5,
9, 10, 16, and 20. Defendant’s “life” interest is at stake in the proceedings. Ohio Adult Parole
Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (five Justice recognized a distinct “life” interest
3

protected by the Due Process Clause in capital cases above and beyond liberty and property interests.) Death is different. For that reason more process is due, not less. All measures must be taken to prevent arbitrary, cruel, and unusual results in a capital trial. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438
U.S. 586 (1978); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976). Therefore, at bare minimum this Court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to address the constitutional violations alleged in the instant motion.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________________________
Attorney for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this document was delivered to the office of the Prosecutor on
.
_____________________________
Attorney for Defendant
4