In State V

In State v.Butler, the Supreme Court of Ohio was confronted with the question of whether the prosecution could use a non-Mirandized confession to impeach the credibility of a defendant who testifies in his or her own defense.The U.S.Supreme Court held in Miranda v.Arizona that the prosecution's use of statements of an accused made to police without prior warnings of his rights to remain silent, to counsel, and to have appointed counsel if indigent was a violation of the accuser's right against self-incrimination.Justice Frankfurter, in writing the Miranda decision, which involved the use of a confession as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief, suggested that a non-Mirandized confession could be used on cross-examination by the prosecution if the defendant testified.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A) Justice Frankfurter's statement is not binding on the Ohio Supreme Court in State v.Butler because it is dicta.
B) Justice Frankfurter's statement is not binding on the Ohio Supreme Court in State v.Butler because a precedent set by the U.S.Supreme Court concerning the U.S.Constitution is not binding in Ohio state courts.
C) Justice Frankfurter's statement is not binding on the Ohio Supreme Court in State v.Butler because Ohio courts can interpret the U.S.Constitution differently than the U.S.Supreme Court under the state's police power.
D) Justice Frankfurter's statement is binding on the Ohio Supreme Court in State v.Butler even if it was a dissenting opinion in Miranda instead.