吃瓜大本营

When criminal defendants are interrogated after counsel has been appointed, police still must protect defendants鈥� right to counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court protected this right in Michigan v. Jackson by holding that when an accused鈥檚 right to counsel has attached and an attorney has been appointed, any uncounseled waiver of the defendant鈥檚 right to counsel in a state-initiated interrogation is deemed invalid. However, this holding was overruled in Montejo v. Louisiana where the court ruled that the federal right to counsel does not prohibit police-initiated interrogations of defendants represented by counsel, and the defendants鈥� statements are admissible as long as they waive their right to counsel.

In May 2022, Isaiah Morris, a criminal defendant, was assigned counsel. He met this attorney but was not able to confer with him in private. Afterwards, the police retrieved Mr. Morris from his cell and had him sign a 鈥淣otification of Rights鈥� form, but importantly, Mr. Morris was never asked to waive his right to counsel. The police proceeded to question Mr. Morris, although he was confused about whether he could have his attorney present. Later a Grand Jury returned a 14-count indictment against Morris.

In November of 2023, Morris filed a motion to suppress the statements he made during the interview with the police, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The trial court granted this motion, ruling that Montejo does not apply under Ohio鈥檚 Constitution. The First Appellate District affirmed this decision. The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and the law firm Wilmer Hale, filed an amicus brief in July 2024 arguing that the Court of Appeals decision should be affirmed because the 鈥淣otification of Rights鈥� form provided to Mr. Morris was not enough to demonstrate that Mr. Morris voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel and chose to speak, uncounseled, to the police.

The brief argues that the Ohio Constitute can and should go further the U.S. Constitution in protecting the right to counsel. The Ohio Constitution requires that police provide a context-specific explanation of a defendant鈥檚 right to counsel when counsel has already been appointed to ensure that any waiver is knowing and intelligent. Because Mr. Morris鈥檚 Notification of Rights form only provided basic Miranda information, it fell far short of the requirements for a valid waiver.