Document: 425 U.S. 257 96 S.Ct. 1438 47 L.Ed.2d 722 State of OHIO, Petitioner,v.Terry L. GALLAGHER. No. 74-492. April 5, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 We granted certiorari1 to determine whether the admission in evidence statements made by an accused response in-custody questioning his parole officer violates rule Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). 2 On June 21, 1972, respondent, Terry Gallagher, was arrested and later charged with armed robbery a food store. morning following arrest, two detectives advised respondent rights under then questioned him.2 3 Four days later, respondent's officer, William Sykes, went jail talk him about store as possible violation parole. Respondent refused discuss it, but on return visit week Gallagher gave Sykes detailed account participation crime. It is undisputed that, at no time, did advise that he had right remain silent or any would be used against him. At trial, called prosecution witness testified, over defense objection, incriminating Gallagher. 4 convicted Ohio Court Common Pleas. The Appeals affirmed. 36 App.2d 29, 301 N.E.2d 888 (1973). 5 Supreme motion for leave appeal reversed judgment conviction. 38 St.2d 291, 313 396 (1974). In its opinion, state court defined question presented "whether testimony, concerning certain (respondent) involvement crime, received trial (respondent's) privilege self-incrimination, guaranteed § Constitution, Fifth Amendment United States Constitution." Id., 294, N.E.2d, 398-399. held testimony relating questions inadmissible if, prior questioning, failed provided counsel warn statement might 297, 400. 6 From briefs oral argument, we are unable rested decision upon Fourteenth Amendments Constitution States, Art. I, 10, both. full cited approval excerpt from opinion Circuit Deaton, 468 F.2d 541 (1972), case which, view court, precise before it. unsure reference Deaton merely lend support parolee heavy pressure cooperate intended demonstrate reliance federal constitutional ground. Indeed, cannot not construe provision identical contained thus render simultaneously both law. 7 also note except per curiam opinions, it settled speaks only through syllabi cases. See Cassidy Glossip, 12 17, 24, 231 64 (1967); see Beck Ohio, 379 89, 93, 85 223, 226, 13 142, 146 (1964). italicized headnote which appears instant syllabus can read holding based points criminal law ; contains nothing indicate point decided. Because decline speculate choice words authorities author formed basis vacate remand cause permit explicate relies California Krivda, 409 33, 93 32, 34 45 (1972); Mental Hygiene Dept. Kirchner, 380 194, 871, 753 (1965); Minnesota National Tea Co., 309 551, 60 676, 84 L.Ed. 920 (1940). intimate merits issue presented. 8 Vacated Remanded. 9 Mr. Justice STEVENS took part consideration this case. 10 STEWART, whom MARSHALL BLACKMUN concur, dissenting. 11 clear me rests States. That being so, writ certiorari must dismissed improvidently doctrine Jankovich Toll Road Comm'n, 487, 493, 439. thought decide could hardly have been more unambiguously stated than B. Brown opening paragraph court: "The appellant parol appellant's Section Article I 396, 398-399.* 14 dismiss granted. 420 1003, 95 1445, 43 761 (1975). Statements elicited during police interrogation were suppressed ground they induced promises leniency and, such, involuntary. * For 100 years other opinions has syllabus. present makes whatever law, federal, ruling area state-evidence If so understood, fortiori question.

Category: 8