MCLEOD

v.

OHIO

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981)
  …ed to overt or more subtle forms of interrogation' or other efforts to elicit incriminating information. In Massiah and Brewer, counsel had been engaged or appointed and the admissions in question were elicited in his absence. But in McLeod v. Ohio, 381 U. S. 356 (1965), we summarily reversed a decision that the police could elicit information after indictment even though counsel had not yet been appointed. If, as frequently would occur in the course of a meeting initiated by the accused, the conversation i…
• Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1977)
  …im after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.” 377 U. S., at 206. That the incriminating statements were elicited surreptitiously in the Massiah case, and otherwise here, is constitutionally irrelevant. See ibid.; McLeod v. Ohio, 381 U. S. 356; United States v. Crisp, 435 F. 2d 354, 358 (CA7); [*401] United States ex rel. O’Connor v. New Jersey, 405 F. 2d 632, 636 (CA3); Hancock v. White, 378 F. 2d 479 (CA1). Rather, the clear rule of Massiah is that once adversary proceedings have commen…
• Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1972)
  …v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701. Even on the erroneous premise that the “retroactivity” of Massiah is here involved, the District Court was quite mistaken in stating that “[n]o Court has declared Massiah retroactive.” This Court, in McLeod v. Ohio, 381 U. S. 356, reversed, citing Massiah, an Ohio conviction because a voluntary confession was admitted in evidence that had been obtained when police officers questioned the petitioner in the absence of counsel a week after he had been indicted. The conviction a…

Authorities Cited

• Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1964)