Appellate Brief of J.G. in the First Appellate District of Ohio
This appellate brief from counsel for J.G. argues that the Hamilton County Juvenile Court correctly suppressed the statements provided by J.G. to the police as they were products of police force and coercion and not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily given.
From the brief: As the juvenile court rightfully found, the coercion in this case was enough to render J.G.’s Miranda waiver involuntary. 637-T.d. 117; 638-T.d. 114; 639-T.d. 126. Police intentionally used physical force and “pain compliance” to get a 15-year-old child with no prior experience with the police to do what they wanted, including waiving his Miranda rights. Once police encountered J.G., nothing J.G. did was voluntary; the police consistently made clear that J.G. had no free will. The extent of the physical force that J.G. was subjected to within one hour would have been enough to convince him that he did not have a choice but to waive his Miranda rights. The totality of the circumstances establishes that the waiver was not freely given and was a result of a physically coercive police environment. Since the State did not establish that the Miranda waiver was voluntary, the waiver was not valid and J.G.’s statements were rightfully suppressed.
. . .
J.G.’s age of 15, lack of prior contact with the criminal justice system, and only being in the 10th grade are significant when considering the totality of the circumstances. Furthermore, the fact that officers were aware of J.G.’s PTSD diagnosis cannot be ignored when considering the totality of the circumstances around J.G.’s confession and the fact that he was physically accosted by officers a short time before. This was not a situation where J.G. merely “calmed down” by the time he made the confession. J.G.’s entire demeanor changed after multiple officers slammed him against the wall and held him there. See Defense Ex. 2 –30
08:30-22:17 contra 03:57-08:30. This was a clear reaction to what had just happened to him. J.G. was not required to take the stand to say that his statement was coerced. This can be determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances.
The juvenile court rightfully found that J.G.’s confession was likely impacted by these factors and the “pervasive risk of force against his person.” 637-T.d. 117; 638-T.d. 114; 639-T.d. 12. Police also used J.G.’s mother as a coercive tactic to obtain a confession. The use of force by the police as well as the threats, statements, and beratement from J.G.’s mother was the contributing factor for J.G. making a confession.
