148 Ohio St. 505 - State v. Petro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 526 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 536 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To warrant the granting of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case, based on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown that the new evidence (1) discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial, (3) is such as could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered before the trial, (4) is material to the issues, (5) is not merely cumulative to former evidence, and (6) does not merely impeach or contradict the former evidence.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Hill, Unpublished Decision (5-22-2006) · 111 Ohio App. 3d 516 - State v. Larkin

2. “(A) Grounds. A new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant for any of the following causes affecting materially his substantial rights: * * * (6) When new evidence material to the defense is discovered which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at trial. When a motion for a new trial is made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce at the hearing on the motion, in support thereof, the affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, and if time is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits, the court may postpone the hearing of the motion for such length of time as is reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. The prosecuting attorney may produce affidavits or other evidence to impeach the affidavits of such witnesses.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Prade · 155 Ohio App. 3d 145 - State v. Johnson

3. “[t]he new testimony proffered must neither be impeaching nor cumulative in character.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McMahon, Unpublished Decision (11-24-2004)