Lego v. Twomey

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Merit Decision: Court Finds R.C. 2933.81(B) Unconstitutional As Applied to Juveniles and Inapplicable to Analysis of Validity of Miranda Waiver. State v. Barker.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanMay 2, 2016

    Anything less is not a waiver. If the state does not satisfy its burden, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used.)Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972) (Constitutional principles of due process preclude the use of coerced confessions as fundamentally unfair, regardless of whether the confession is true or false. When a defendant challenges his confession as involuntary, dues process requires that the state prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary.)State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (1976) (In determining whether a confession was voluntary, the reviewing court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s age; mentality; prior criminal experience; the length, intensity, and frequency of the interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and the existence of threat or inducement.)Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) (When the suspect is a juvenile, the totality of the circumstances includes the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence as well as his capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Am

  2. Oral Argument Preview: Voluntariness of a Juvenile Confession. State of Ohio v. Tyshawn Barker.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanNovember 10, 2015

    )State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15 (1978) (When a defendant challenges the admissibility of the defendant’s prior statements to law enforcement, the statements may only be admitted against the defendant if the state meets its burden of proving that those statements were voluntarily given by showing that the defendant was not influenced by threats or improper inducements.)Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972) (When a confession is challenged by a defendant as involuntary, he is entitled to a reliable and clear-cut determination that the confession was in fact voluntarily rendered. The prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary. States are free to adopt a higher standard.)Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1963) (A defendant’s statements may only be admitted against the defendant if the interrogation comparts with due process.