![]() We have observed that this Court retains a role when a state courts interpretation of state law has been influenced by an accompanying interpretation of federal law. Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. In discussing the contours of that privilege, the court relied on our precedents. The Supreme Court of Ohios decision that Batt was wrongly granted immunity under §2945.44 (and consequently, that reversal of respondents conviction was required) rested on the courts determination that Batt did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege. The court emphasized that the defenses theory of Batts guilt was not grounds for a grant of immunity, when the witness continues to deny any self-incriminating conduct. Ibid. Thus, she did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege. 89 Ohio St. The court held that Susan Batts testimony did not incriminate her, because she denied any involvement in the abuse. It noted that the Court of Appeals, in finding a valid privilege, failed to consider the prosecutors suggestion that Batts testimony would not incriminate her, and Batts denial of involvement in Alexs abuse when questioned by the Childrens Services Board. The court faulted the trial judge for failing to question sufficiently Batts assertion of the privilege. Hoffman, it noted, requires the trial court to determine whether the witness has correctly asserted the privilege, and to order the witness to answer questions if the witness is mistaken about the danger of incrimination. ![]() The court recognized that the privilege against self-incrimination applies where a witness answers could reasonably furnish a link in the chain of evidence against him, id., at 352, 731 N. The court found that the wrongful grant of immunity prejudiced respondent, because it effectively told the jury that Batt did not cause Alexs injuries. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the reversal, on the alternative ground that Batt had no valid Fifth Amendment privilege and that the trial courts grant of immunity under §2945.44 was therefore unlawful. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, reversed respondents conviction on grounds not relevant to our decision here. ![]() ![]() The jury found respondent guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and he appealed. She said she was unaware of and had nothing to do with the other injuries to both children. She testified that she had never shaken Alex or his brother at any time, specifically on the day Alex suffered respiratory arrest. Batt denied any involvement in Alexs death. She then testified to the jury that she had refused to testify without a grant of immunity on the advice of counsel, although she had done nothing wrong. At the States request, the trial court granted her transactional immunity from prosecution pursuant to Ohio Rev. The defense theory was that Batt, not respondent, was the culpable party.īatt informed the court in advance of testifying that she intended to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege. Batt had cared for the children during the day for about two weeks prior to Alexs death. Alex was in the care of the familys babysitter, Susan Batt, at that time. Respondents experts testified that Alex could have been injured several hours before his respiratory arrest. Respondent had been alone with Alex for half an hour immediately before Alex stopped breathing. His twin brother Derek, who was also examined, had several broken ribs. Evidence produced at trial revealed that Alex had a broken rib and a broken leg at the time of his death. Alex died two days later when he was removed from life support. He estimated that Alexs injury most likely occurred minutes before the child stopped breathing. The coroner testified at trial that Alex died from shaken baby syndrome, the result of child abuse. Respondent was charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of his 2-month-old son Alex. Because our precedents dictate that the privilege protects the innocent as well as the guilty, and that the facts here are sufficient to sustain a claim of privilege, we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse. The Supreme Court of Ohio here held that a witness who denies all culpability does not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |