Treesh is a German word that is a respell of the North German Driesch (topographic name for an uncultivated field). The word is pronounced Trish, and its meaning is “to change men like clothes,” meaning “to hoe around.” The term also refers to a person who spends a lot of time in the dayroom, either watching TV, talking, or both.
Treesh’s slang terms
“Treesha” is a derogatory term for multiple-partner women, which originates from east coast slang. Although it was not popular in New York until Bennie Bates’ song “Treesha” came out, the term has since become a slang term in the United States.
Treesh is an uncommon last name for both sexes. It is derived from a German word, “treesh,” which is a respell of North German “dreish.” The word is used as a slang term in Southern Florida.
In Treesh v. Bagley, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the Ohio police officer did not properly read Treesh’s Miranda rights. This was due to the fact that Treesh failed to respond when the police officer read the Miranda warnings and repeatedly interrupted Janusczak. During the interview, Treesh indicated to Doyle that he understood his Miranda rights, but did not explicitly waive them.
Miranda warnings are legally required by law and must be clearly understood by the suspect. In addition, they must inform the suspect that his statements may be used against him in court. Moreover, the officer must give the suspect a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney. If a suspect requests an attorney, the police must stop the interrogation immediately.
The purpose of Miranda warnings is to protect people from police officers using their statements as evidence. It is also important to note that the warning can be waived at any time. Nevertheless, if police officers need to search a person, they may still interrogate him or her. The police can then use the statements to attack the suspect’s credibility.
After the arrest, police officers followed Treesh on foot. The officers allegedly saw Treesh pointing a gun at them. They ordered him to put down the gun and he then tried to escape over a fence. As the officers tried to chase Treesh, several officers confronted him. One of them, Officer Janusczak, handcuffed Trees and advised him of his Miranda rights.
Despite the Miranda warnings, the police officers continued the interrogation despite Treesh’s request for an attorney. The trial court’s decision in Treesh was based on the evidence presented in the suppression hearing. The court ruled that Treesh’s statements were not voluntary.
Treesh was convicted on murder and attempted murder charges after shooting two people in Eastlake, Ohio. He had been on a multistate crime spree fueled by cocaine. He had committed numerous robberies, sex assaults, and violent home invasions. In addition, he tried to kill two police officers in Euclid. In his trial, a Lake County jury found Treesh guilty. Despite this, he was never prosecuted for other crimes he committed.
On appeal, Treesh argued that a prosecutor’s statement to the jury was improperly prejudicial to his own cause. The prosecutor had intended to have the jury believe that he did not intentionally shoot at the police, but that Treesh “intentionally” shot Louis Lauver and Henry Dupree in the head. Treesh argued that these remarks were erroneous, but the court found them valid.
In addition, Treesh argued that the trial court waived his right to be present at pretrial conferences. While the court acknowledged that Treesh’s attorney had assured him that he waived his right to be present during pretrial conferences, it relied upon the assurances of Treesh’s attorney. The trial court noted that counsel’s waiver of Treesh’s presence at pretrial conferences was consistent with Treesh’s own wishes and was not inconsistent with a court’s journal entry.
Treesh also claims the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for mistrial. He argues that Detective Doyle, the investigating officer in Treesh’s case, improperly questioned Treesh and Brooks at a store following his arrest. He also confronted them with a taped statement of a store clerk.
Treesh was found guilty of murder after a trial in Eastlake, east of Cleveland, in 1994. His defense lawyers stated that he was high at the time of the robbery. He said he was deeply sorry and had tried to teach other people not to use drugs. He was also found guilty of carrying a weapon while under disability.
Treesh also claims that the prosecution tried to turn a lay witness into an expert on gun residue. According to the prosecutor’s summary of testimony, Sharon Rosenberg, a forensic scientist, testified that there was no gun residue on Treesh’s shirt.
A death sentence for Frederick Treesh has been handed down in Ohio for the 1994 shooting death of an adult bookstore security guard. During a robbery, Treesh shot and killed security guard Henry Dupree, 58, in Eastlake, Ohio. While he claims his actions were motivated by his cocaine addiction, prosecutors say his actions were intentional and he deserves the death penalty.
Treesh’s lawyers say his rights were violated during a lengthy interrogation process that ultimately led to his conviction. They also note that Treesh’s health issues are concerning, including a seizure disorder. Additionally, their client’s lawyers have raised questions about the state’s lethal injection process. Nevertheless, Treesh is guilty of murdering Dupree and trying to kill the police officers in pursuit.
Before his crime spree, Treesh was living in Indiana. He met Brooks in Cleveland. He believed the two men were police officers. Washington also considered robbing them, but decided it was too dangerous. He was then charged with aggravated murder and attempted murder, and his accomplice was sentenced to 40 years in prison. He declined to interview for clemency.
Treesh’s appeals have been delayed several times. He can request that the 11th District Court of Appeals review the case. Alternatively, he can petition the Ohio Supreme Court. In any case, Treesh’s attorneys can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
Treesh’s lawyers argue that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for a mistrial. They contend that Detective Doyle’s questioning of Treesh and Brooks at the Eastlake store following his arrest was improper. In addition, Detective Doyle confronted them with a taped statement from Lauver’s testimony. Defense counsel was worried that the prosecutor was trying to elicit testimony regarding Treesh’s request for an attorney. However, the prosecutor assured him that he was seeking testimony regarding Treesh’s request to make a deal and did not intend to elicit it.
Treesh argues that the prosecutor questioned him improperly and made comments that were prejudicial to his defense. Despite these arguments, the court did not distinguish Treesh’s death sentence as disproportionate or excessive. In the end, he has been convicted of murder and will remain on death row.