8 East Long Street - 11th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 466-5394

(800) 686-1573

Murphy v. Bradshaw

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Chief Judge Sandra S. Beckwith of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the writ of habeas corpus in this death penalty case, finding that not only was Petitioner Ulysses Murphy’s inculpatory statement to detectives taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, but also that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of the defense’s motion to suppress. 

Murphy was convicted of shooting a man outside of an after-hours bar during an alleged robbery.  The victim died of the gunshot wounds.  The police brought Murphy in for questioning.  After reading Murphy his Miranda rights and asking him some questions, Murphy stated that he was ready to quit talking and wanted go home.  The police detectives failed to honor Murphy’s assertion of his right to remain silent and continued to interrogate him.  Murphy eventually made inculpatory statements, which were videotaped.  He was then placed under arrest.  Defense counsel filed a pretrial motion to suppress the confession, which the trial court denied.  The video of the interrogation was played for the jury at trial.  In opening statement, defense counsel conceded guilt, without the client’s consent, because of that evidence. 

Murphy argued the issue in his federal habeas petition.  The District Court held that the trial court erroneously denied the motion to suppress, and the error was not harmless.  The District Court found that other evidence of guilt was not substantial; testimony of an eyewitness could be attacked as unreliable.  If the confession had not been admitted as evidence, defense counsel may have formed a different trial strategy.  Chief Judge Beckwith did not adopt the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge on this issue.  The Magistrate Judge had determined that the trial court committed an error by not suppressing the confession but that it was harmless.  By contrast, the District Judge found that “the confession had a substantial and injurious effect in determining the jury’s verdict.” 

For more information, contact Assistant State Public Defender Ruth Tkacz.

| Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility | Contact Us |