From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connor v. Ohio

U.S.
Dec 13, 1965
382 U.S. 286 (1965)

Summary

In O'Connor v. Ohio, 382 U.S. 286, we considered this contention when we granted certiorari, vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Ohio for further proceedings in light of our decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609. Following remand, the Ohio court by a closely divided vote upheld petitioner's conviction solely on the ground that he failed to object to the proscribed comment at his trial and during his first appeal in the state courts.

Summary of this case from O'Connor v. Ohio

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

No. 281, Misc.

Decided December 13, 1965.

Rehearing granted: certiorari granted: vacated and remanded.


The petition for rehearing is granted and the order of October 11, 1965, insofar as it denies certiorari, is vacated. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for further proceedings in light of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609.


Summaries of

O'Connor v. Ohio

U.S.
Dec 13, 1965
382 U.S. 286 (1965)

In O'Connor v. Ohio, 382 U.S. 286, we considered this contention when we granted certiorari, vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Ohio for further proceedings in light of our decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609. Following remand, the Ohio court by a closely divided vote upheld petitioner's conviction solely on the ground that he failed to object to the proscribed comment at his trial and during his first appeal in the state courts.

Summary of this case from O'Connor v. Ohio

In O'Connor v. Ohio, 382 U.S. 286, 86 S.Ct. 445, 15 L.Ed.2d 337 (1965), a short per curiam opinion, the Court applied without explanation the new standard of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant's failure to testify), to cases pending on direct appeal when Griffin was decided, while Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L.Ed.2d 453 (1966), denied complete retroactive application to the Griffin no-comment rule.

Summary of this case from United States v. Lenardo
Case details for

O'Connor v. Ohio

Case Details

Full title:O'CONNOR v . OHIO

Court:U.S.

Date published: Dec 13, 1965

Citations

382 U.S. 286 (1965)

Citing Cases

State v. Brown

The Griffin case did not decide whether the new rule applied only prospectively or had retroactive effect.…

United States v. Lenardo

It is not clear from that language whether the Court was implying that the present rule with regard to…