1. Whether a 22 month delay between preliminary hearing and indictment denies an accused his right to a "speedy trial" under the Ohio and United States constitutions.
2. Whether in cross-examination of a defendant the prosecutor may use prior inconsistent statements of the defendant, made to police without Miranda warnings, in order to impeach his credibility?
2. What are Miranda rights?
The Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights), is a warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated to inform them about their constitutional rights.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
3. What type of evidence did the State Attorney introduce at trial to impeach the credibility of the defendant?
Those words of Justice Frankfurter were uttered in regard to evidence inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. In the case of the Fifth Amendment, even greater reason exists to distinguish between statements of an accused used in the prosecution's direct case and used for impeachment in cross-examining the accused when he takes the stand. We must not lose sight of the words of the Fifth Amendment: "... nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. ..." This is a privilege accorded an accused not to be compelled to testify, nor to have any prior statements used by the prosecution to prove his guilt. We cannot translate those words into a privilege to lie with impunity once he elects to take the stand to testify. Under our ruling in State v. White (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 146, the accused could have "discovered" recorded statements made to the police. This is as much protection against a faulty memory as any defendant is entitled to.
4. What does impeach credibility mean?
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial.
5. What was the purpose of bringing this evidence forward? Did the State Attorney introduce this evidence to prove that the defendant had committed the crime?
To impeach the credibility of the witness, prove contradictory statements. No, just to question the credibility of the witness
6. How did the majority of the court distinguish the case of using a statement to impugn credibility from using a statement to establish guilt? Look at the top right paragraph on page 129.
"These pronouncements by the Supreme Court may be technically dictum. But it is abundantly plain that the court intended to lay down a firm general rule with respect to the use of statements unconstitutionally obtained from a defendant in violation of Miranda standards. The rule prohibits the use of such statements whether inculpatory or exculpatory, whether bearing directly on guilt or on collaterial matters only, and whether used on direct examination or for impeachment."
7. Why did the Supreme Court of Ohio use the technique of distinguishing? Could the Supreme Court of Ohio have overturned the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Miranda case? In law, to distinguish a case means to contrast the facts of the case before the court from the facts of a case of precedent where there is an apparent similarity. State cannot override Federal Court, but they were not trying to prove guilt but, to impeach credibility.
8. What does the dissenting judge say about the scope of Miranda?
"These pronouncements by the Supreme Court may be technically dictum. But it is abundantly plain that the court intended to lay down a firm general rule