Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Dixon v. Houk, 08-4019

By FindLaw Staff on December 09, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Issue of coerced confession in a death penalty case

Dixon v. Houk, 08-4019, concerned a defendant's petition for habeas relief from his murder conviction and a sentence of death, claiming that his confession was coerced in violation of Miranda.

In granting the petition, the court held that the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied Miranda in refusing to require the police to terminate interrogation upon exercise of the right to have a lawyer present and in allowing the police to demand involuntary answers by re-instituting the questioning without warnings.  Further, the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied Oregon v. Elstad by holding that the deliberate, planned refusal to warn, followed by warnings after confession should be treated the same as the momentary, innocent failure to warn in Elstad.  Lastly, the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling that defendant's confession was voluntary resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of facts presented in the state court proceeding, because the "admonition" that defendant should "cut a deal" was not simply "an admonition to tell the truth," rather, it was part of the coercive strategy to get defendant to confess involuntarily.

Related Link:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard