Does Immunity of Forced Self-Incriminating Statement Bar Prosecutor from Pretrial Review of Statement?
State of Ohio v. Anthony Jackson, Case no. 2008-1499 5th District Court of Appeals (Stark County) ISSUE: In a 1967 decision, Garrity v. New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a police department or other public employer investigating alleged employee misconduct may force an employee to answer questions that might incriminate him or face firing; but no information obtained through such a coerced statement can later be used in a criminal proceeding against him. In this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio is asked to decide whether Garrity and subsequent court decisions bar a prosecutor who is pursuing criminal charges against a police officer only from presenting evidence to a grand jury that was obtained through the officer’s immunized statement, or if Garrity and its progeny also bar a prosecutor from using information obtained through the officer’s immunized statement in any way to help the state prepare its case against the officer. BACKGROUND: While he was on paid administrative
