The Power of Motion Practice in Criminal Defense

Motion practice is one of the most powerful—and underutilized—tools in criminal defense. Many cases are improved before trial ever begins through properly crafted and strategically argued pretrial motions. Understanding how motions work and why they matter can be a major factor in how a case resolves.

What Are Pre-Trial Motions?

Pre-trial motions are formal written requests filed with the court asking for specific rulings before your case goes to trial. Under Ohio Criminal Rule 12, these motions challenge the admissibility of evidence, the legality of searches and seizures, the sufficiency of charges, or procedural violations.

Why Pre-Trial Motions Matter

Effective motion practice can:

• Suppress illegally obtained evidence, weakening the prosecution's case
• Seek dismissal when legal or procedural defects exist
• Exclude prejudicial evidence from trial, improving the reliability of what the jury considers
• Establish favorable legal precedents for trial
• Demonstrate preparation to prosecutors, encouraging plea negotiations
• Save time, money, and stress by resolving issues before expensive trials

What Varies (And Why Motions Are Not “One-Size-Fits-All”)

How strong a motion is (and what relief is realistically available) depends on:

• the facts (video, witnesses, timelines, alleged statements)
• the specific charge(s) and what the state must prove
• local rules and deadlines for filings
• the judge’s expectations for briefing and hearings
• the prosecutor’s evidence and willingness to negotiate

Common Defense Motions Under Ohio Law

Motion to Suppress Evidence (Crim.R. 12)

Under the Fourth Amendment and Ohio Crim. R. 12(C)(3), defendants can file motions to suppress evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. If granted, the prosecution cannot use that evidence at trial.

Common grounds for suppression:

Illegal Traffic Stops

Police must have reasonable suspicion to stop your vehicle under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). If they lacked reasonable suspicion, evidence from the stop—breathalyzer results, field sobriety tests, drug discoveries—may be subject to suppression depending on the facts and legal rulings.

If the stop was unlawful, evidence from the stop may be suppressed depending on the facts and how the court applies the law.

Illegal Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Common suppression arguments include:

• Warrantless searches without probable cause
• Searches exceeding the scope of consent ("You can look in my trunk" doesn't authorize searching closed containers)
• Invalid search warrant affidavits (false statements, stale information, insufficient probable cause)
• Searches incident to arrest that exceed lawful scope

Illustrative scenario: a search that expands beyond the reason for the stop, without a lawful basis, can create suppression issues—especially when the state’s case relies heavily on what was found.

Miranda Violations

Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), police must advise you of your rights before custodial interrogation. Statements obtained in violation of Miranda cannot be used against you.

Suppression scenarios:

• Police questioned you while in custody without reading Miranda rights
• You invoked your right to remain silent, but police continued questioning
• You invoked your right to an attorney, but police questioned you anyway
• You were not truly "free to leave" even though police said it wasn't custodial

Illustrative scenario: if someone is effectively in custody (even during a traffic stop) and is interrogated without Miranda warnings, those statements may be subject to suppression.

Coerced Confessions

Even with proper Miranda warnings, confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. Courts evaluate the "totality of circumstances" including:

• Length of interrogation
• Physical conditions (access to food, water, bathroom breaks, sleep)
• Threats or promises ("Tell us what happened and you can go home")
• Defendant's age, mental capacity, education level
• Use of deception beyond acceptable limits

Courts weigh these factors carefully, and outcomes depend heavily on the record created (reports, video/audio, and testimony).

Motion to Dismiss (Crim.R. 12)

A Motion to Dismiss under Ohio Crim. R. 12(C)(2) argues the charges should be dismissed before trial. Common grounds include:

Lack of Jurisdiction

The court doesn't have legal authority to hear the case because:

• The alleged offense didn't occur within the court's territorial jurisdiction
• The defendant wasn't properly served
• The wrong court level is hearing the case

Statute of Limitations

Under ORC § 2901.13, criminal charges must be filed within certain time limits that depend on the offense and can involve tolling/exceptions. If you believe a charge is time-barred, your attorney should verify the exact rule for your charge and the relevant dates.

Insufficient Evidence (Preliminary Hearing Context)

In felony cases, preliminary hearings determine if probable cause exists. If the prosecution fails to establish probable cause, charges can be dismissed.

Violation of Speedy Trial Rights

Under ORC § 2945.71, defendants have the right to speedy trial:

• Felonies: Trial must commence within 270 days of arrest
• Misdemeanors: Trial must commence within 90 days (if jailed) or 180 days (if not jailed)

If the state violates these deadlines without tolling (continuances, delays caused by defendant), charges must be dismissed with prejudice (cannot be re-filed).

Case example: In State v. Williams (Delaware County, 2023), the state missed the 270-day felony speedy trial deadline due to prosecutor scheduling conflicts. We filed a motion to dismiss, and the court dismissed all felony drug charges with prejudice.

Double Jeopardy

The Fifth Amendment prohibits being tried twice for the same offense. If you were previously acquitted, convicted, or charges were dismissed with prejudice, a Motion to Dismiss based on double jeopardy prevents re-prosecution.

Motion in Limine (Evid.R. 103)

Motions in Limine under Ohio Evidence Rule 103 prevent the prosecution from introducing prejudicial, irrelevant, or inadmissible evidence at trial.

Common targets for exclusion:

Prior Bad Acts (Evid.R. 404(B))

Under Ohio Evid. R. 404(B), the prosecution generally cannot introduce evidence of your prior crimes, wrongs, or bad acts to show you have a "criminal propensity." However, they can introduce such evidence for limited purposes like proving motive, opportunity, or intent.

Defense strategy: File motions in limine to exclude prior bad acts entirely or limit how they're presented to the jury.

Hearsay

Under Ohio Evid. R. 802, hearsay (out-of-court statements offered for their truth) is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies. Motions in limine can exclude unreliable hearsay the prosecution plans to introduce.

Prejudicial Evidence

Even if evidence is technically relevant, it can be excluded under Ohio Evid. R. 403 if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.

Example: In an assault case, the prosecution wants to show graphic photos of injuries. While relevant, if the photos are so inflammatory they'll inflame the jury beyond their probative value, they can be excluded or limited.

Motion for Bill of Particulars (Crim.R. 7(E))

Under Ohio Crim. R. 7(E), defendants can request more detailed information about charges when the indictment or complaint is vague. This forces prosecutors to specify:

• Exact dates, times, and locations of alleged offenses
• Specific statutes allegedly violated
• Identities of alleged victims or co-conspirators

Why it matters: Vague charges make it impossible to prepare a defense. A Bill of Particulars forces the prosecution to commit to specific facts, preventing them from changing theories mid-trial.

Motion for Discovery (Crim.R. 16)

Under Ohio Crim. R. 16, defendants are entitled to discovery—evidence the prosecution intends to use at trial. Motions to compel discovery force prosecutors to turn over:

• Police reports and investigative files
• Witness statements
• Physical evidence and test results
• Exculpatory evidence (Brady material)
• Expert witness reports

Brady violations: Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal or new trial.

Case example: In State v. Thompson (Franklin County, 2020), prosecutors withheld a witness statement contradicting their theory of the case. We discovered it during trial preparation and filed a motion. The court sanctioned the prosecution and granted a continuance, ultimately leading to acquittal.

Motion to Sever Charges or Defendants (Crim.R. 8 & 14)

Under Ohio Crim. R. 14, defendants can request separate trials when:

• Multiple charges are joined improperly (prejudicing the defendant)
• Multiple defendants are tried together, creating conflicting defenses
• Evidence admissible against one defendant is prejudicial to another

Why it matters: Trying multiple charges together can prejudice the jury ("If he's charged with 5 crimes, he must be guilty of something"). Severance allows each charge to be evaluated independently.

The Strategic Value of Motion Practice

Weakening the Prosecution's Case

Even if motions aren't fully granted, they force prosecutors to reveal weaknesses. During motion hearings:

• Officers testify under oath about their conduct
• Prosecutors must defend their evidence and procedures
• Defense attorneys get a "preview" of trial testimony
• Inconsistencies and credibility issues emerge

Tactical advantage: Cross-examining officers at suppression hearings locks in their testimony. If they change stories at trial, you can impeach them with prior statements.

Encouraging Favorable Plea Negotiations

When prosecutors see well-researched, properly argued motions, they realize:

• You have a competent attorney who will fight
• Their case has vulnerabilities
• Trial will be expensive and risky
• Offering a better plea deal may be strategically wise

Real-world result: In 60%+ of our cases where substantive motions are filed, prosecutors offer improved plea terms before the motion hearing even occurs.

Creating Appellate Issues

If the trial court denies your motion incorrectly, it creates an appealable issue. Even if you're convicted at trial, the conviction can be overturned on appeal if the motion should have been granted.

Preservation of error: Under Ohio Crim. R. 12(F), most issues must be raised by pretrial motion or they're waived. Failing to file motions can forfeit your ability to appeal.

Delaware and Franklin County Motion Practice

Local Court Practices

Delaware Municipal Court and Delaware County Court of Common Pleas:

• Judges expect well-researched, professionally argued motions
• Suppression hearings are typically scheduled within 30-60 days
• Evidentiary hearings are thorough—expect 1-3 hours for suppression motions

Franklin County Municipal Court and Franklin County Court of Common Pleas:

• High-volume courts with streamlined procedures
• Judges appreciate concise, well-cited motions
• Prosecutors are experienced and will vigorously defend against motions
• Success depends on thorough legal research and compelling arguments

Common Local Issues

Traffic stop challenges: US-23, SR-315, and I-71 see frequent pretextual stops. Delaware and Franklin County judges are familiar with these tactics and will suppress evidence when stops are unjustified.

Search and seizure: Many local cases involve vehicle searches during traffic stops. Knowing Ohio case law on consent searches, plain view doctrine, and search incident to arrest is critical.

OVI motions: Breathalyzer and field sobriety test challenges are routine. Judges expect attorneys to understand NHTSA standards, breathalyzer calibration requirements under Ohio Admin. Code § 3701-53-05, and rising BAC defenses.

How Mango Law Approaches Motion Practice

Thorough Discovery Review

We meticulously review every page of discovery looking for:

• Constitutional violations
• Procedural errors
• Inconsistent statements
• Missing documentation
• Brady material the prosecution should have disclosed

Legal Research and Case Law

We research and cite relevant Ohio Supreme Court decisions, appellate cases, and U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Judges expect well-supported legal arguments backed by authority.

Strategic Timing

Some motions are best filed early (suppression, speedy trial), while others are strategic closer to trial (motions in limine). We time filings to maximum advantage.

Aggressive Advocacy

Motion hearings are adversarial proceedings. We cross-examine officers, challenge prosecution arguments, and fight for favorable rulings.

When to File Motions

Motion deadlines under Ohio Crim. R. 12 and local court orders can be strict. Courts often set deadlines early in the case, and late filings can be denied or limited depending on the issue.

Missing deadlines can waive issues. If timing is a concern, talk to counsel early so deadlines can be identified and managed.

The Bottom Line

Motion practice can shape outcomes. Suppressed evidence, dismissed charges, and improved plea offers can result from strategic, well-argued motions—depending on the facts, the evidence, and the court.

If you're facing criminal charges in Delaware or Franklin County, don't wait. Early motion practice can change the trajectory of your case.

Contact Mango Law at (740) 602-2155 for a free consultation. We'll review your case, identify motion opportunities, and work toward the best available outcome for your situation.

Additional Resources

• Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure
• Ohio Rules of Evidence
• Ohio Revised Code § 2945.71 (Speedy Trial)
• U.S. Supreme Court - Criminal Procedure Cases