State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal must be established by the evidence in the record.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Ash · State v. Telego

2. “However, case law has evolved. For instance, in Yarbrough , the mastermind declarant, who hired the defendant to kill the victim, died prior to trial. After finding the statement against interest hearsay exception applied, the Ohio Supreme Court found no confrontation clause issue with the admission of the declarant's statement to private citizens incriminating himself and the defendant. [State v.] Yarbrough , 95 Ohio St.3d 227 [ 2002-Ohio-2126 ], 767 N.E.2d 216 at ¶ 46-54, 56 (and this was prior to Crawford's testimonial standard). In any event, the Bruton principles were premised on the confrontation clause. As subsequent federal and Ohio state decisions have been rendered limiting the confrontation clause's application to testimonial statements, prior principles must be viewed under the lens of the intervening precedent. See [Ohio v.] Clark , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. [2173] at 2180 [ 192 L.Ed.2d 306 (2015) ] ("a statement cannot fall within the Confrontation Clause unless its primary purpose was testimonial"). In accordance, if the out-of-court statement of a non-testifying codefendant is not testimonial, then Bruton has no application because the confrontation clause has no application. "Because it is premised on the Confrontation Clause, the Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause itself, does not apply to nontestimonial statements." United States v. Johnson , 581 F.3d 320 , 326 (6th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. Vasquez , 766 F.3d 373 , 378 (5th Cir. 2014) ; ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Luckie

3. “was derived from knowledge and experience and was not erroneously admitted. {¶ 112} Additionally, Det. Johnson's testimony was relevant and probative of the discussions that took place in this matter. Moreover, the probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. {¶ 113} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. XV. Flight Instruction {¶ 114} Appellant next argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by giving a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shine