State v. Pruett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Unlike the Illinois statute, our statute does not authorize a challenge for cause of anyone merely because he says he ‘has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or that he is opposed to the same. ’ Our statute has, since at least 1869 (66 Ohio Laws 287, 307), apparently agreed with the conclusion stated in the opinion in With-erspoon, and thus has authorized challenging a juror for cause only where such a juror had opinions which precluded him from voting for a verdict that would result in the death penalty.” 61 S # M* “In our opinion, Witherspoon and Boulden v. Holman (1969), 394 U. S. 478 , 22 L. Ed. 2d 433 , recognize that a state statute may authorize challenge of a prospective juror for cause in a capital case where his opinions preclude him from finding the accused guilty of an offense punishable with death.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 28 Ohio App. 2d 234 - State v. Anderson

2. ““* * * Unless a venireman states unambiguously that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal, it simply cannot be assumed that that is his position.” And again in footnote 9: “The critical question, of course, is not how the phrases employed in this area have been construed by courts and commentators. What matters is how they might be understood — or misunderstood — by prospective jurors. Any ‘layman # # * [might] say he has scruples if he is somewhat unhappy about death sentences. * * * [Thus] a general question as to the presence of # * * reservations [or scruples] is far from the inquiry which separates those who would never vote for the ultimate penalty from those who would reserve it for the direst cases.’ # *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Ohio App. 2d 115 - State v. Watson

3. ““ * * * there is absolutely nothing in [Pruett] * * * to indicate any effort either by state legislation or by court action to exclude prospective jurors from the jury simply because of their opposition to the death penalty.” State v. Pruett, supra, 170-171 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Ohio App. 2d 115 - State v. Watson