No. 18-1241

Demetrius Jackson v. Ohio

Lower Court: Ohio
Docketed: 2019-03-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: child-protective-services criminal-procedure fifth-amendment police-interrogation right-to-counsel self-incrimination sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2019-05-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether interrogations by state-employed child protective services caseworkers violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, where the caseworkers are required by law to share information obtained with police and prosecutors

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Where the victim of a crime is a child, a Child Protective Services (“CPS”) caseworker employed by the state normally investigates the incident in close cooperation with the police. The caseworker is typically required by law to share any information obtained during her investigation with the police and the prosecutor. During these investigations, caseworkers routinely interrogate arrested suspects and convey incriminating information to the police. These interrogations are exactly like interrogations conducted by the police, with the single exception that the interrogator is a CPS caseworker rather than a police officer. The Questions Presented are: I. Whether an interrogation that would violate the Fifth Amendment if conducted by a police officer also violates the Fifth Amendment if conducted by a state-employed CPS caseworker, where the caseworker is required by law to share information obtained in the interrogation with the police and the prosecutor. Il. Whether an interrogation that would violate the Sixth Amendment if conducted by a police officer also violates the Sixth Amendment if conducted by a state-employed CPS caseworker, where the caseworker is required by law to share information obtained in the interrogation with the police and the prosecutor.

Docket Entries

2019-05-20
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.
2019-04-26
Reply of petitioner Demetrius Jackson filed. (Distributed)
2019-04-17
Brief of respondent Ohio in opposition filed.
2019-03-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 24, 2019)
2019-01-02
Application (18A672) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until March 21, 2019.
2018-12-19
Application (18A672) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 19, 2019 to March 21, 2019, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.

Attorneys

Demetrius Jackson
Stuart BannerUCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, Petitioner
Stuart BannerUCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, Petitioner
Ohio
Anthony Thomas MirandaThe Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent
Anthony Thomas MirandaThe Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent