118 Ohio App. 3d 73 - State v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Any claim of prejudice, such as the death of a few witnesses, lost evidence, or faded memories, must be balanced against the other evidence in order to determine whether actual prejudice will be suffered by the defendant at trial.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lyon, 2007 Ap 08 0050 (5-29-2008) · State v. Clark, Ca2007-03-037 (10-6-2008)

2. “A delay may be unjustifiable where, for example, it is intentionally undertaken in order to gain some tactical advantage over the defendant, or when the state through negligence has ceased active investigation of a case and then later decides to commence prosecution upon the same evidence that was available to it at the time the investigation ceased.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sosnoskie, 22713 (5-15-2009)

3. “An unjustifiable delay between the commission of an offense and a defendant's indictment therefor, which results in actual prejudice to the defendant, is a violation of the right to due process of law under Section 16 , Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brumley, Unpublished Decision (5-4-2005)