29 Ohio App. 2d 206 - State v. Clay’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably State v. Walker (1978), 34 Ohio St. 2d 250 - State v. Clay (1973)
25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Glasser v. United States · Holland v. United States · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · State v. Perry
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.
“If it be sufficient to support an inference of guilt and the defendant fails to offer a reasonable explanation consistent with innocence, such failure may be considered by the trier of fact... . It is not necessary, in appraising the sufficiency of the evidence, that this court be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant... . The question is whether the evidence, construed most favorably for the prosecution, is such that a jury (or trial judge) might find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where the prosecution makes a probable case on an issue as to which a defendant has a peculiar knowledge of the facts and may easily prove them, an inference arises that the truth is with the prosecution. Williams v. United States, 170 F.2d 319 (5th Cir.1948), cert. denied 335 U.S. 909 , 69 S.Ct. 412 , 93 L.Ed. 442 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n application for a bill of particulars is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Wong Tai v. United States (1927), 273 U.S. 77 . The purpose of the bill of particulars is to inform a defendant of the nature of the charge against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, or to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense. However, it is not the function of a bill of particulars to enable a defendant to obtain access to evidentiary matters. Stumbo v. United States (1937), 90 F.2d 828 , 833 . Nor will such a bill be ordered where the information sought is within the knowledge of the defendant, or is information which he has had equal opportunity with the state of Ohio to discover.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.