Mr. Jewell thus invited the conversation, and he remained free at all times to conclude it. The interview took place in an investigator’s office, not a cell or other coercive location, and Mr. Jewell was neither handcuffed nor shackled. The meeting lasted just over an hour, and Mr. Jewell did most of the talking. At no point did he attempt to stop or leave the room, and no point was Det. McNeil hostile or threatening in his questioning.
State v. Jewell
First District Appellate Court
Hamilton County, Ohio
July 16, 2025
Why is this case important?
State v. Jewell reinforces that Miranda protections hinge on custodial status, that waivers may be inferred through actions and simply because a person is incarcerated does not mean they are in Miranda custody.
Background – Killer Appeals his Conviction
Defendant-appellant Jamal Jewell was found guilty by a Hamilton County jury of murder, kidnapping, felonious assault, tampering with evidence, possessing a firearm while under a disability, and related firearm specifications. He was sentenced to an aggregate term in prison of 32 years to life. Mr. Jewell now appeals, arguing that detectives violated his right against self-incrimination, that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel, that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury, and that the evidence pointed to Mr. Jewell’s two codefendants as the shooters. As we explain in this opinion, we reject Mr. Jewell’s arguments and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Homicide on Thanksgiving Eve 2018
R.H. was fatally shot on Gray Road on Wednesday November 21, 2018. Police initially suspected an individual found at the scene the night of the shooting, but ultimately exonerated her. No other early leads developed, and the case went cold.
Mr. Jewell Initiates Interview with Cincinnati Police from Ross Correctional
Then, in September of 2022, Cincinnati Police detectives received word from Ross Correctional Institution (“Ross”) that Mr. Jewell wanted to talk with them. Mr. Jewell was incarcerated at Ross at the time for an unrelated crime. On September 15, 2022, Detective Marcus McNeil from the Cincinnati Police Department (“CPD”) traveled to Ross to meet with Mr. Jewell. At their meeting, Mr. Jewell told Det. McNeil that he was present when R.H. was shot and that two siblings, Alexis and Michael Hill, were the culprits.
Investigation Continues
Det. McNeil subsequently investigated the involvement of both the Hill siblings and Mr. Jewell in R.H.’s murder. He spoke with the Hills and he reinterviewed Mr. Jewell at Ross. He also collected additional physical evidence, including a surveillance video showing Mr. Jewell and R.H. outside a nightclub together the night of the shooting and a Maaco receipt indicating a car had been painted to change its color just days after R.H. died.
Indictments
On June 8, 2023, Michael Hill, Alexis Hill, and Mr. Jewell were all three indicted for R.H.’s death. The charges against Mr. Jewell included: (1) Counts 1 and 2, murder in violation of O.R.C. §2903.02(A) and (B), both felonies of the first degree; (2) Count 3, kidnaping in violation of O.R.C. §2905.01(A)(3), a felony of the first degree; (3) Counts 4 and 5, felonious assault in violation of O.R.C. §2903.11(A)(1) and (A)(2), both felonies of the second degree; (4) Count 6, tampering with evidence in violation of O.R.C. §2921.12(A)(1), a felony of the second degree; and (5) Counts 7 and 8, having a weapon under disability in violation of O.R.C. §2923.12(A)(2), a felony of the second degree. Mr. Jewell also faced accompanying firearm specifications.
Motion to Suppress
Following his indictment, Mr. Jewell filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to Det. McNeil. He argued that he was subjected to a custodial interrogation during his first interview with Det. McNeil and therefore should have received Miranda warnings, but did not. With respect to his second interview, he contended that his signature on a Miranda rights notification form did not constitute an effective waiver of his self-incrimination rights.
The trial court heard Mr. Jewell’s suppression motion on May 13, 2024.
Det. McNeil testified on behalf of the State at the hearing. He explained that he began investigating R.H.’s death on November 21, 2018, the night of the shooting. The investigation went cold when the initial suspect was cleared.
On September 14, 2022, Det. McNeil received word from Ross that Mr. Jewell wanted to speak with a CPD detective about a homicide. The next day he and Detective Todd Green went together to Ross to meet with Mr. Jewell. The meeting took place in an investigator’s office at the prison. Det. McNeil did not consider Mr. Jewell a suspect at the time and therefore did not provide him with Miranda warnings. Mr. Jewell was not handcuffed, shackled, or restrained, although he was not free to leave the prison complex, and could terminate the conversation at any time. The interview lasted approximately 75 minutes.
Det. McNeil met with Mr. Jewell again on May 4, 2023, this time at Warren Correctional Institution where Mr. Jewell was then housed. Detective Brandon Field accompanied Det. McNeil to this interview.
Miranda Waiver and Signature
As before, the meeting took place in an office, and Mr. Jewell was not physically restrained other than being incarcerated. But prior to this interview, Det. McNeil Mirandized Mr. Jewell. Det. McNeil also asked Mr. Jewell if he could read and write and if he had taken any drugs or alcohol that would prevent him from understanding their conversation. Following Mr. Jewell’s answers, Det. McNeil provided Mr. Jewell with a form prepared by CPD that notified him of his Miranda rights and asked Mr. Jewell to sign it. Det. McNeil did not explain that Mr. Jewell’s signature on the form constituted a waiver of rights. After signing the form, Mr. Jewell continued the interview, which lasted about 90 minutes.
The State submitted audio recordings of Det. McNeil’s interviews with Mr. Jewell into the record, and the trial court took the matter under advisement.
Jury Trial
Mr. Jewell’s jury trial began on May 14, 2024. Immediately before the start of jury selection, the trial court denied Mr. Jewell’s motion to suppress.
The State called nine witnesses at trial, and Mr. Jewell rested without presenting any evidence.
The State’s first witness was Kenneth Byrne, a CPD police specialist who responded to the Gray Road shooting on November 21, 2018. Byrne found R.H. unresponsive and unsuccessfully attempted CPR for five to ten minutes.
Shell Casings and an Inoperable Ruger
Steven Alexander, a criminalist in CPD’s forensic video unit, next testified to items he photographed and recovered at the crime scene. Among these items were shell casings from a Winchester 9 mm Ruger and a gun he test-fired and determined to be inoperable.
Group Home Video
The State also called the manager of a group home for adults with developmental disabilities located on Cedar Road. R.H. had been a resident of the group home for approximately two years at the time of the shooting. The group home manager identified security camera footage from the night of the shooting that depicted R.H. While the footage displayed an incorrect timestamp, the manager explained that a third-party had installed the security cameras. The State intimated that perhaps the clock was set to central time.
A member of the family that owns Shaker’s Night Club also testified. Shaker’s is located at the corner of Hamilton and Cedar near the group home. The Shaker’s owner identified surveillance footage from Shaker’s from the day of the shooting, and the footage was admitted into evidence.
Dean testified that all of the bullet entrance wounds were on the front of R.H.’s body, except one that was on his side.
The State further called Dorothy Dean, a forensic pathologist and deputy coroner, as an expert witness. Dean examined R.H.’s body and determined his death to be a homicide. In her opinion, R.H. was fatally wounded by gunshot wounds to his torso and right lower extremity. Dean testified that all of the bullet entrance wounds were on the front of R.H.’s body, except one that was on his side. She was unable to ascertain how far away the gun was from R.H.’s body when he was shot.
Testimony
Both Alexis and Michael Hill testified against Mr. Jewell. For her part, Alexis admitted that she had also been charged with R.H.’s murder and denied receiving a benefit for her testimony.
Foonote #1 Because Alexis and Michael share a last name, we use their first names to eliminate confusion.
So How Did You Meet?
Alexis met Mr. Jewell through her brother Michael in July 2018, while Mr. Jewell and Michael were incarcerated together. Alexis and Mr. Jewell began dating in September 2018 while Mr. Jewell was still in prison. Alexis described Michael and Mr. Jewell’s relationship as close. All three—Michael, Mr. Jewell, and Alexis—lived at Alexis’s apartment after Michael and Mr. Jewell were released.
Known Robber
The day of the shooting, Alexis and Mr. Jewell were at the apartment when Michael arrived, stating he had been robbed. Michael spoke erratically and paced back and forth in the living room. He said he knew who robbed him but never identified the person.
Drive Under a Threat of Death
Mr. Jewell then told Alexis to drive all three of them in her car. Initially Alexis refused and attempted to walk away, but Mr. Jewell pointed a gun at her head and again told her to drive. Alexis admitted that she owned a black 9 mm gun she had purchased at a gun show, although she could not remember the brand. The gun that Mr. Jewell pointed at her head was her own gun. Alexis was scared for her life, so she ultimately agreed to Mr. Jewell’s plan.
Two Cars – Two Guns
Alexis owned a black Mazda, and Michael was driving a rental car at the time. Mr. Jewell suggested they take Alexis’s car because its windows were tinted black. Alexis was the driver, Michael was in the passenger seat, and Mr. Jewell was in the backseat. Alexis drove from the apartment to an address on Cedar Road, under Michael and Mr. Jewell’s direction. As Alexis drove, Mr. Jewell retained possession of Alexis’s 9 mm gun. Alexis also saw Michael with a different gun in the car.
What is Going On?
Once they arrived on Cedar Road, Alexis pulled into the parking lot across from Shaker’s. Mr. Jewell got out of the vehicle and approached R.H., whom Alexis had never seen before. Alexis asked Michael what was going on, but he did not reply.
Alexis then saw Mr. Jewell and R.H. walk down the street and into a building. When she lost sight of them, she pulled out of the Shaker’s lot and headed in their direction. But she was never able to see where they went so she returned to the parking lot.
Old school, let me holler at you.
Mr. Jewell eventually came back and got in the backseat. He directed her to leave the parking lot and drive up Cedar. As they approached a white house, Mr. Jewell told her to stop. R.H. came out of the house, and Mr. Jewell said to him, “Old school, let me holler at you.” R.H. then got in the backseat of the car with Mr. Jewell.
Through her rearview mirror, Alexis saw Mr. Jewell brandish a gun to R.H. Mr. Jewell then asked R.H. about the location of the man who robbed Michael, as did Michael. R.H. said that he did not know.
Mr. Jewell and R.H. walked towards a wooded area, and Alexis heard multiple shots.
Mr. Jewell instructed Alexis to pull into an apartment parking lot on Gray Road. Mr. Jewell then told R.H. to get out of the car, following him out. Alexis did not drive away because Mr. Jewell had a gun, and she was scared. Mr. Jewell and R.H. walked towards a wooded area, and Alexis heard multiple shots. Mr. Jewell then returned to the vehicle alone and told Alexis to drive away. According to Alexis, Michael never got out of the vehicle. After the shooting, Alexis drove the group back to her apartment. When they arrived, Michael left in his car, and Mr. Jewell left in his car.
Mr. Jewell took Alexis to Maaco to have the vehicle painted
Shortly after the shooting, Alexis told Mr. Jewell she no longer felt comfortable driving her black Mazda. On November 21, 2018, Mr. Jewell took Alexis to Maaco to have the vehicle painted. Although the Maaco receipt was in Alexis’s name, Mr. Jewell paid for the repair, and Alexis picked the new color.
Alexis moved out of the apartment that she shared with Mr. Jewell and Michael in December 2018. She had broken up with Mr. Jewell by this point.
Alexis received what she perceived to be a threat from Mr. Jewell through the prison email system.
In May of 2021, Alexis received what she perceived to be a threat from Mr. Jewell through the prison email system. She spoke with Det. McNeil three or four times about R.H.’s murder beginning in 2022. She initially denied involvement and also failed to mention that Mr. Jewell threatened her with a gun to coerce her to drive. Eventually Alexis ended up telling Det. McNeil what happened to R.H.
Beans Testimony
Michael Hill, who went by the nickname “Beans,” testified to a similar version of events, although Michael’s testimony differed from his sister’s in some key respects. For one thing, Michael disputed Alexis’s contention that he was close with Mr. Jewell. Michael only considered Mr. Jewell an associate. He also testified that Mr. Jewell did not stay the night at Alexis’s apartment and did not live with her.
[H]e made money by selling drugs, primarily methamphetamine and cocaine.
Michael explained that, in November 2018, he made money by selling drugs, primarily methamphetamine and cocaine. On the day of R.H.’s murder, Michael received a call from a customer who wanted to buy drugs. He attempted to fulfill the order but was robbed. He then sought Mr. Jewell’s assistance in addressing the robbery, as it occurred in Mr. Jewell’s neighborhood.
Robber is Identified
Michael went to Alexis’s apartment, where he described the robber to Alexis and Mr. Jewell. Mr. Jewell indicated that he knew who the robber was. Michael then drove the three of them—himself, Alexis, and Mr. Jewell—to the scene of the robbery. Once there, Michael and Alexis switched seats in the car, and Alexis became the driver. Michael contended that he did not have a gun and neither did Mr. Jewell.
Mr. Jewell noticed R.H. on the street and got his attention. R.H. asked if he could get a ride. R.H. then got in the car, sat behind Alexis, and asked to be dropped off at an apartment down the street. Michael told Mr. Jewell that R.H. was not the robber and that he had never seen R.H. before.
Michael then heard gun shots.
As they drove, Mr. Jewell asked R.H. about the robbery, but R.H. said he did not know anything about it. When they arrived at the apartment where R.H. asked to be dropped off, R.H. got out of the car, and Mr. Jewell followed. Michael could see the two talking but could not hear what they were saying. Michael then heard gun shots. Mr. Jewell got back into the front passenger seat with a black gun in his hand.
They then drove back to Alexis’s apartment. Michael got into his rental vehicle and left. Neither Michael nor Alexis called the police because they were afraid of Mr. Jewell.
Mr. Jewell repeatedly told Michael that he and Alexis needed to stay quiet about what happened.
Sometime later, Michael and Mr. Jewell were housed at Madison Correctional Institution together. While at Madison, Mr. Jewell repeatedly told Michael that he and Alexis needed to stay quiet about what happened. Michael also received threats from Mr. Jewell while in jail waiting to testify at trial.
At the time of his testimony, Michael was serving a five-year sentence for distribution of drugs and drug trafficking.
At the time of his testimony, Michael was serving a five-year sentence for distribution of drugs and drug trafficking. He had previously served time at FMC Lexington, a federal facility. Michael had also been convicted of a state drug- trafficking charge, for which he had served time at the Madison and London correctional centers. Michael admitted that he would not have testified against Mr. Jewell if he were not also charged with R.H.’s murder.
The State next called Bryan Wellinghoff, a former investigator at Ross Correctional Institution. Investigator Wellinghoff testified that he relayed a message from Mr. Jewell to Det. McNeil that Mr. Jewell wanted to speak to a Hamilton County detective about a crime.
Det. McNeil Testimony
The State’s final witness at trial was Det. McNeil. He explained his initial involvement with R.H.’s homicide and how the case remained unsolved prior to Mr. Jewell’s request to speak with him.
Det. McNeil described receiving a call on September 14, 2022, indicating that Mr. Jewell, then an inmate at Ross, wanted to speak with him. Det. McNeil met with Mr. Jewell at Ross the following day. When he arrived, Mr. Jewell seemed pleased that he was there. At the time of this initial meeting, Mr. Jewell was not considered a suspect in R.H.’s murder.
Alexis had also purchased a gun at the Sharonville Convention Center
Det. McNeil authenticated, and the State played, the audio of Mr. Jewell’s September 15, 2022 interview. In it, Mr. Jewell indicated that he was familiar with R.H. and his killing. He also said that he knew Beans and previously dated Beans’s sister Alexis. Mr. Jewell believed that Beans was accusing him of being involved in R.H.’s murder, which prompted him to contact detectives. Mr. Jewell told Det. McNeil that Beans had been robbed the day that R.H. was shot and sought his assistance. In a search for the robber, Mr. Jewell and Beans confronted several individuals Mr. Jewell suspected of being involved, but nothing came of the encounter. Later that night, Mr. Jewell was at a location on Cedar Road, when Beans called him to say he had located the robber. At the same time, Alexis also called to indicate she intended to kill someone on Gray Road. Before Mr. Jewell could intervene, he heard shots. He believed Michael killed the victim. Mr. Jewell then went to Alexis’s apartment to change shoes because he was going to a club that night. Alexis later painted her black car blue at Maaco. Alexis had also purchased a gun at the Sharonville Convention Center, but Mr. Jewell did not know what became of it.
Following his first interview with Mr. Jewell, Det. McNeil spoke with Alexis. The first time he asked her about R.H.’s murder, she denied involvement. But she later contacted Det. McNeil’s office to indicate that her cell phone might ping in the area of the shooting.
He now considered Mr. Jewell a person of interest
Before Det. McNeil could schedule a follow-up interview with Alexis, Mr. Jewell reached out to him again, this time from Warren Correctional Institution. He now considered Mr. Jewell a person of interest and interviewed Mr. Jewell for a second time. An audio recording of Det. McNeil’s second interview with Mr. Jewell was played for the jury.
The interview began with Det. McNeil reading Mr. Jewell his Miranda rights
The interview began with Det. McNeil reading Mr. Jewell his Miranda rights and executing a rights notification form. Det. McNeil then confronted Mr. Jewell with the allegation that Beans committed the murder. Mr. Jewell indicated that he wanted a benefit for sharing information with Det. McNeil, but Det. McNeil could not make any promises. He could only relay information. Mr. Jewell continued the interview nonetheless.
Mr. Jewell denied that the person in the image was him. Instead, Mr. Jewell continued to assert that Michael was responsible for the shooting.
Mr. Jewell repeated his version of events surrounding R.H.’s murder. Det. McNeil then showed Mr. Jewell a depiction of the Shaker’s parking lot taken at 9:51 p.m. on the night of the murder. Mr. Jewell agreed that both he and R.H. were present in the depiction and admitted that he handed R.H. drugs during the interaction. But when the depiction advanced to 9:52 p.m., Mr. Jewell denied that the person in the image was him. Instead, Mr. Jewell continued to assert that Michael was responsible for the shooting. At the conclusion of the interview, Det. McNeil informed Mr. Jewell that his statement materially differed from the others and that the case was scheduled to be presented to a grand jury.
Det. McNeil’s testimony resumed after the recording of Mr. Jewell’s second interview was played. Det. McNeil acknowledged that the timestamps on the surveillance footage from R.H.’s group home were off by an hour. But he could not explain why.
Motion to Acquit was Denied
At the conclusion of Det. McNeil’s testimony, defense counsel moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29. The motion was denied.
Jury Instructions
Before the case was submitted to the jury, the trial court heard arguments as to the jury instructions. The State sought a complicity instruction, but Mr. Jewell objected on the grounds that he had not been charged with complicity. In response, the State argued that a charge of principal liability included complicity and that it was within the jury’s province to assess whether Mr. Jewell acted as principal or as an accomplice. The trial court agreed with the State and overruled Mr. Jewell’s objection.
Guilty on All Counts
32 Years to Life
On May 23, 2024, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts against Mr. Jewell. The trial court later sentenced him to an aggregate prison sentence of 32 years to life.
Appeal
Is Mr. Jewell’s Statement to Det. McNeil Admissible?
On appeal, Mr. Jewell raises five assignments of error. First, Mr. Jewell asserts that the statements he gave police violated his right against self-incrimination and should have been suppressed. Second, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his motion to suppress did not cite the Ohio Constitution as a basis for relief. Third, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it gave the jury a complicity instruction. Fourth, he contends that the trial court failed to properly admonish the jury during separation. Lastly, Mr. Jewell argues that his murder conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Each of Mr. Jewell’s assignments of error lacks merit.
Miranda Violation?
Mr. Jewell’s first assignment of error takes issue with the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Mr. Jewell contends that his first interview with Det. McNeil violated his right against self-incrimination because he was incarcerated and was therefore entitled to Miranda warnings before speaking with a detective. He further argues that his second interview with Det. McNeil violated the Fifth Amendment because Det. McNeil failed to warn him that executing the rights notification form could be considered a waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination.
Established Case Law – Custodial Interrogation
With regard to Mr. Jewell’s first interview, Mr. Jewell is correct that a suspect must be Mirandized before being subjected to a custodial interrogation. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-471 (1966). But the fact that Mr. Jewell was in prison is not by itself sufficient to establish that he was in custody. See, e.g., State v. Barker, 2017- Ohio-596, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.). Rather, the inquiry into whether an incarcerated person is subject to a custodial interrogation focuses on all the features of the interview, not merely the fact that the interviewee is in prison. Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499, 514 (2012). These include “(1) the location of the questioning, (2) its duration, (3) statements made during the interview, (4) the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, and (5) the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning.” State v. Nelson, 2016-Ohio-7115, ¶ 24 (6th Dist.).
Mr. Jewell initiated the interview by asking to speak to Det. McNeil
Looking at the September 15, 2022 interview in its totality, Mr. Jewell was not subjected to a custodial interrogation. Critical to that determination is the fact that Mr. Jewell initiated the interview by asking to speak to Det. McNeil. Mr. Jewell thus invited the conversation, and he remained free at all times to conclude it. The interview took place in an investigator’s office, not a cell or other coercive location, and Mr. Jewell was neither handcuffed nor shackled. The meeting lasted just over an hour, and Mr. Jewell did most of the talking. At no point did he attempt to stop or leave the room, and no point was Det. McNeil hostile or threatening in his questioning.
Because his confession was voluntary, and because he was not subjected to a custodial interrogation
Under these circumstances, we cannot say that Mr. Jewell was in custody. Rather, Mr. Jewell made a voluntary confession as to his knowledge of R.H.’s murder. “Voluntary confessions are not merely a proper element in law enforcement, they are an unmitigated good, essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.” Howes at 514. Because his confession was voluntary, and because he was not subjected to a custodial interrogation, Mr. Jewell was not entitled to Miranda warnings during his first interview.
Nor did Mr. Jewell’s implied waiver of his Miranda rights in his second interview present any Fifth Amendment problems. We assess whether Mr. Jewell knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights under a totality-of-the circumstances test. State v. Durgan, 2018-Ohio-2310, ¶ 21 (1st Dist.). Under this test, courts consider “the age, mentality, and prior criminal experience of the accused; the length, intensity, and frequency of interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and the existence of threat or inducement.” State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-2562, ¶ 32 (1st Dist.). It is the State’s burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Id. at ¶ 33. “Absent evidence that an accused’s will was overborne or his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired because of coercive police conduct, a waiver of Miranda rights will be considered voluntary.” Id.
A suspect’s decision to continue to speak with police after receiving Miranda warnings can constitute a form of inferred waiver.
An accused may waive his Miranda rights either expressly or by inference. Id. at ¶ 36. Where waiver is inferred, a suspect’s behavior and the circumstances surrounding the interrogation can be taken into account to determine whether the suspect knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. Id. A suspect’s decision to continue to speak with police after receiving Miranda warnings can constitute a form of inferred waiver. Id.
Mr. Jewell expressly indicated that he understood his rights, signed the form acknowledging them, and began discussing R.H.’s murder immediately thereafter.
The totality of the circumstances in this case indicate that Mr. Jewell knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his self-incrimination rights in speaking with Det. McNeil a second time. Before interviewing Mr. Jewell, Det. McNeil read Mr. Jewell his rights and presented him with a rights notification form. Mr. Jewell expressly indicated that he understood his rights, signed the form acknowledging them, and began discussing R.H.’s murder immediately thereafter. Mr. Jewell also attempted to bargain with Det. McNeil for a benefit in his case in exchange for his participation in the interview, exhibiting awareness of the legal system and its intricacies. Under these circumstances, we infer that Mr. Jewell waived his Miranda rights when he acknowledged that he understood his rights and continued to speak with Det. McNeil nonetheless.
Mr. Jewell’s first assignment of error is accordingly overruled.
Note: Mr. Jewell raised four additional appeals and all four were denied. Those additional appeals are not evaluated in this article.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Jewell, 2025 – Ohio – 2496.
State v. Jewell, 2025 – Ohio – 2496 was issued by the First District Appellate Court and is binding in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Lessons Learned:
- Do All In Prison Interviews Require a Miranda Warning? On February 21, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court issued Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) and defined prison interviews “[W]e have repeatedly declined to adopt any categorical rule with respect to whether the questioning of a prison inmate is custodial … Taking a prisoner aside for questioning–as opposed to questioning the prisoner in the presence of fellow inmates–does not necessarily convert a “noncustodial situation . . . to one in which Miranda applies.”.
- Doctrine of Re-initiation – In this case, Mr. Jewell initiated the interview with Det. McNeil by requesting to talk to the detective; “On September 14, 2022, Det. McNeil received word from Ross that Mr. Jewell wanted to speak with a CPD detective about a homicide.”. Thereafter, “ McNeil met with Mr. Jewell again on May 4, 2023, this time at Warren Correctional Institution where Mr. Jewell was then housed. Detective Brandon Field accompanied Det. McNeil to this interview. As before, the meeting took place in an office, and Mr. Jewell was not physically restrained other than being incarcerated. But prior to this interview, Det. McNeil Mirandized Mr. Jewell.”. In the second interview, Mr. Jewell was Mirandized and waived.
- Did Mr. Jewell Implicitly Waive his Miranda Right? “ McNeil did not explain that Mr. Jewell’s signature on the form constituted a waiver of rights. After signing the form, Mr. Jewell continued the interview, which lasted about 90 minutes.”. However, on June 15, 2018 the First District Appellate Court opined in State v. Durgan, 2018-Ohio-2310 “He was read his rights, and indicated that he understood them. He never stated that he did not wish to talk to the police, that he wanted to leave, or that he wanted to talk to a lawyer. He continued to talk about the murder for quite some time.”. Because Mr. Durgan continued to talk, that was an implied waiver of his Miranda Rights. So too with Mr. Jewell, because Mr. Jewell continued to talk to Det. McNeil that constitutes an implied waiver of his MirandaRights.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Cincinnati Police Detective Marcus McNeil and the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office should be highly commended for their investigation, conviction and successful appeal defense of Mr. Jewell. Well done!
Does your agency train on Custodial Interrogations?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!