State v. Ketterer’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 278 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 281 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably State v. Hunter (2011), State v. Ketterer (2010)
1 federal appellate · 278 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Boykin v. Alabama · State v. Jenks · Hill v. Lockhart
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In ineffective-assistance claims in guilty-plea cases, `the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“disturb a verdict on appeal on sufficiency grounds unless 'reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dilo · State v. Walters“Contrary to Ketterer's claim, the trial court was not required to specifically advise Ketterer on the need for juror unanimity. We rejected similar claims in State v. Bays (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 15 , 19–21, 716 N.E.2d 1126 , citing United States v. Martin (C.A.6, 1983), 704 F.2d 267 . In Bays, we noted that 'a defendant need not have a complete or technical understanding of the jury trial right in order to knowingly and intelligently waive it.' Id. at 20, 716 N.E.2d 1126 . Nor is the trial court 'required to inform the defendant of all the possible implications of waiver.' Id. Accord Sowell v. Bradshaw (C.A.6, 2004), 372 F.3d 821 , 833–836; State v. Turner, 105 Ohio St.3d 331 , 2005- Ohio-1938, 826 N.E.2d 266 , ¶ 24–25; Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 , 2004-Ohio-3167 , 810 N.E.2d 927 , ¶ 44–46 (accused need not be told that jury unanimity is necessary to convict and to impose sentence).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.