162 Ohio App. 3d 706 - State v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`Outcome determinative' means that had the results of DNA testing been presented at the trial of the subject inmate requesting DNA testing and had been found relevant and admissible with respect to the felony offense for which the inmate is an eligible inmate and is requesting the DNA testing or for which the inmate is requesting the DNA testing under section 2953.82 of the Revised Code, no reasonable factfinder would have found the inmate guilty of that offense * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Schlee, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2006)

2. “(1) The court determines * * * that biological material was collected from the crime scene or the victim of the offense for which the inmate is an eligible inmate and is requesting the DNA testing and that the parent sample of that biological material against which a sample from the inmate can be compared still exists at that point in time. {¶ 22}”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Schlee, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2006)

3. “Even if DNA testing excluded the victim as the source of the blood on appellant's sock, a reasonable jury could still find appellant guilty of the charges set forth in the indictment. A reasonable jury could come to this conclusion based solely upon circumstantial evidence, appellant's confession, and testimony of the other witnesses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hatton, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2006)