Example Of No.1 Case Study

Heading

The STATE of Ohio v. FARRIS, Supreme Court of Ohio, Decided: July 12, 2006, No. 2004-0604.

Statement of Facts

The defendant Stephen Farris was subjected to questioning about the presence of drugs in his car by the state trooper after being stopped on a highway for speeding. The defendant was first questioned without being read his Miranda rights first. A warrantless search was also conducted in his car inside as well as the trunk with the probable cause cited by the trooper being the smell of marijuana.

Procedural History

The defendant had taken his case to the appellate court where a decision to convict him was upheld including the admissibility of evidence from his trunk as well as his testimony. After this, the defendant took his case TO the Supreme Court where the conviction was overturned, and his testimony deemed inadmissible as well as the evidence from the car’s trunk.

Issues

Is the testimony from Farris that was given before he was read his Miranda rights admissible in court? Is the physical evidence found in the defendant’s trunk admissible in court?

Judgment

The Supreme Court majority decision was that both sets of testimonies obtained before and after the defendant was read his Miranda rights, as well as the evidence found in his car's trunk, was inadmissible

Holding

The testimony from Farris that was given before he was read his Miranda rights is inadmissible in court. In addition, the physical evidence found in the defendant’s trunk admissible in court as the probable cause was not enough to warrant a search in his trunk.

Legal Principle Applied

Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution which offers protection to criminal in regards to their rights on evidence and testimony was utilized in this case.

Reasoning

The court applied Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and ruled that it was superior to the federal constitutional and by its terms, the evidence obtained from the trunk of the defendant as well as all the evidence that emerged from his unwarned statements were inadmissible.

No. 2

Heading
The STATE of Ohio v. FARRIS, Supreme Court of Ohio, Decided: July 12, 2006, No. 2004-0604
Statement of Facts
A state trooper stopped Mr. Stephen Farris, the defendant for speeding and detected a marijuana odor coming from his car. The trooper proceeded to ask the defendant whether there were any drugs in the car even before reading him his Miranda rights. Later on, he read the defendant his Miranda rights and searched the car looking for drugs. He was able to find some glass pipe possibly used for smoking marijuana, as well as several cigarette rollers in the car’s trunk.
Procedural History
The county court admitted the testimony from the Farris after being read the Miranda rights but suppressed the testimony prior to the reading of the Miranda rights, and the defendant was convicted. The decision was upheld the District Court of Appeal but was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.
Issues

What constitutes admissible testimony and evidence in a court of law?

Judgment
The fact that the trooper directed similar questions to the defendant before reading him his Miranda rights rendered both the testimonies before and after the reading of the Miranda rights inadmissible. The probable cause used by the trooper for the warrantless search only qualified a search in the car’s trunks and not the car’s interiors.

Holding

Only the testimony and evidence acquired from a defendant after being warned of his Miranda rights is admissible in court of law.

Rule of Law

The court cited the Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution when making the judgment and compared its authority with the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution

Reasoning

According to the majority of the Supreme Court, Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution gives the defendant increased protection from prosecution based on evidence obtained from unwarned statements and in this case, all the evidence was not admissible.

No. 3

Heading
The STATE of Ohio v. FARRIS, Supreme Court of Ohio, Decided: July 12, 2006, No. 2004-0604.
Statement of Facts
The defendant in this case was Stephen Farris, 21 year old who was stopped by an Ohio highway trooper for speeding and who was subsequently questioned about the presence of drugs in his care after the trooper smelt an odor of marijuana. The trooper questioned him two-times, first before reading him his Miranda rights and secondly after reading him his Miranda rights. The trooper accompanied by another officer also conducted a search on the defendant’s car without a warrant where they found marijuana smoking tools including a glass pipe in the trunk of the car.
Procedural History
The court was first heard in the county, and the district courts where both the testimony from the defendant after being read his Miranda rights, as well as the physical evidence from his car's trunk, were admitted. The defendant was convicted but all these rulings were later overturned by the Supreme Court.

Issue

Is the court allowed to admit evidence obtained from a defendant when these have been acquired after the defendant has made unwarned statements, that is, the defendant has been questioned before being informed of his Miranda rights?
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts erred in admitting the testimony of the defendant and the evidence from his car’s trunk and, therefore, the defendant’s conviction was overturned.
Legal Principle Applied
In making the decision about the inadmissibility of the defendant’s testimony both before and after being read his Miranda rights as well the inadmissibility of the physical evidence from his car’s trunk, the court used Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court majority reasoned that Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution gives more protection to a criminal defendant than the one that is given by the Fifth Amendment of the federal constitution and using the provisions of this act, the evidence obtained from the defendant when he had not been warned about his Miranda rights is essential not admissible in court.
Works Cited