Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-28-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 2:21-CV-00053
Judge: Algenon L. Marbley
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Franklin County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office in Columbus
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Columbus, Ohio criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with armed robbery.
One October evening in 2020, a man walked into a Walgreens in Columbus, Ohio. He
was wearing dark clothes, and his pants and shoes had white stains on them. The man placed a
pack of gum on the counter and asked the clerk for cigarettes. When the clerk requested
identification, the man reached into his pocket and pulled out what looked like a handgun
wrapped in a blue bandana. After demanding the cash from the register, the man fled with the
money and the cigarettes. He might have gotten away with it—after all, a man of similar
description had gotten away with about a dozen armed robberies in the area over the preceding
months. But the robber made a crucial mistake: he left the pack of gum.
When the police tested the gum, they found Ronald Lee Jacobs’s fingerprint on it. So
they got an arrest warrant for him. When Jacobs learned of the warrant, he voluntarily went to
the police station and met with Detective Todd Agee.
After asking a few questions about Jacobs’s background, Detective Agee read him his
Miranda rights, and Jacobs certified that he understood them. Detective Agee then questioned
Jacobs about the Walgreens robbery and the other robberies, showing him pictures from the
crime scenes. Detective Agee pointed out that the stains on the robber’s clothes in some of the
pictures looked like stains presently on Jacobs’s jacket. Detective Agee also told Jacobs that his
fingerprint was found on the pack of gum.
When Jacobs denied involvement in the robberies, Detective Agee highlighted the
strength of the fingerprint evidence against him. Detective Agee also said that he had a warrant
written up to search Jacobs’s dad’s house, where he was living at the time, as well as Jacobs’s
car. If needed, Detective Agee emphasized, he’d look until he found the clothes the robber wore
and the guns he used:
I’ll get a search warrant signed, and I’ll go over to your dad’s house, and I will
dump everything in that house out looking for those clothes . . . . And I’m going
to take that jacket because [the stains on it] match[ the stains on the robber’s
clothes]. . . . [T]his is not a threat. This is not me saying something. This is what
I am going to do because I have to find that evidence. I’ve got to find those guns.
And I’ll do a search warrant on your dad’s house because that’s where you’re
staying, and I’ll look for it. And I’ll toss the whole place until I find my evidence.
R. 53-1, Pg. ID 392–93. Finally, Detective Agee said that Jacobs would likely face a severe
sentence given the number of robberies, the strength of the evidence, and Jacobs’s denial of
responsibility. But, Detective Agee said, things might be different if Jacobs “want[ed] to change
[his] story.” Id. at 394. Jacobs then made his first incriminating statement: “Just a minute. The
weapons—them is gone.” Id. at 395.
After that, Detective Agee offered to let Jacobs “think about it,” and he left him alone for
a few minutes. Id. Jacobs asked to call his mother and his girlfriend. At first, Detective Agee
declined, but when Jacobs asked again, Detective Agee offered to let him use Detective Agee’s
own phone. He also offered to bring Jacobs anything he needed to eat or drink. Jacobs
requested water, which Detective Agee provided.
After the break, Jacobs made several other incriminating statements. He said he “f—ed
up bad” because he was “broke” and needed the money for child-support payments. Id. at 397.
He told Detective Agee that he covered up the shotgun seen in some of the pictures because it
was “too big.” Id. at 399. And he explained that the parcel that looked like a handgun at the
Walgreens wasn’t a gun at all, just “sh— wrapped up [to] look[] like that.” Id. at 400. He also
admitted that he “got rid of” the shotgun and the gloves he used in some of the robberies. Id. at
403, 405. Finally, Jacobs worked with Detective Agee to help police retrieve the clothes he wore
during the crimes from his girlfriend’s house. All told, the interview lasted a little less than two
hours.
Ahead of trial, Jacobs moved to suppress the incriminating statements he made during his
interview. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Detective Agee used tactics in
the interview that were impermissibly coercive, thereby rendering Jacobs’s statements
involuntary. The government timely filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the suppression
order.1
See 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
Outcome: The totality of the circumstances indicates that Jacobs’s incriminating statements were voluntary. We reverse the suppression order and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: