16 Ohio App. 3d 153 - State v. Gooden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Boffa , the court ordered the government to provide the individual defendants with the substance of any oral statements made by that defendant and intended for use as evidence by the government which were made during interrogation at any time to any person then known by the declarant defen dant to be a government agent or law enforcement officer. The Boffa court made no discussion of whether or not Crim.R. 16 limits discovery on behalf of the defendant to written summaries of oral statements that have been in existence prior to the discovery request; it simply ordered the government to provide the substance and information that the defendants sought through discovery.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 80 Ohio App. 3d 184 - State v. Callihan

2. ““ * * * The Utley court recognized that insofar as discovery mechanisms enhance constitutional protections such as insuring voluntary confessions, there is no difference between permitting discovery of written statements versus oral statements, save a difference in form. Although the Boffa court failed to launch into a lengthy discussion of the relationship between liberal discovery of written and oral statements and the enhancement of constitutional rights as did the Utley court, the Boffa court’s order reflects a similar underlying rationale. Broad liberal discovery contributes to the accurate determination of an accused’s guilt or innocence. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 80 Ohio App. 3d 184 - State v. Callihan

3. “Where, in a criminal trial, the prosecution fails to comply with Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(a)(ii) by informing the accused of an oral statement made * * * to a law enforcement officer, and the record does not demonstrate (1) that the prosecution's failure to disclose was a willful violation of Crim.R. 16, (2) that foreknowledge of the statement would have benefited the accused in the preparation of his defense, or (3) that the accused *Page 6 was prejudiced by admission of the statement, the trial court does not abuse its discretion under Crim.R. 16(E)(3) by permitting such evidence to be admitted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lopez, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2007)