113 Ohio App. 3d 401 - State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““I personally fail to see how our Supreme Court can require that a defendant be informed in an intelligent manner as to four of the constitutional rights set forth in Rule 11 but only a ‘substantial compliance’ standard as to the fifth constitutional right set forth in Rule 11. This is an anomaly. Additionally, the latter standard requires a showing of prejudice by the omission to inform whereas the former does not. It is incongruous. In this case, there was a complete omission to reasonably inform the defendant of the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires reversal per se in my opinion.” See, also, State v. Scott (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 401, 407-409 , 680 N.E.2d 1297, 1300-1302 (McMonagle, J., dissenting).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 123 Ohio App. 3d 400 - State v. Higgs

2. “Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Veney, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2007)