William Vitoratos v. E. L. Maxwell, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “arraignment in Ohio is not always a ‘critical stage’ of the trial process. (Dean v. Maxwell, ... 174 Ohio St. 193 , 187 N.E.2d 884 (1963)) ... In Ohio, as contrasted with some other states (see: Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 , 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 , 83 S.Ct. 1050 , 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963)), an accused may change his plea ‘for good cause shown’ at any time prior to commencement of trial (§ 2943.03, Ohio Revised Code), and denial of a motion to change plea following appointment of counsel ‘would constitute such good cause that a subsequent refusal by the trial court to permit a change of plea would constitute an abuse of discretion’ reviewable as such (Dean, 187 N.E.2d at 886). As explained at 887 ‘where an indigent accused pleads to an indictment without the benefit of counsel, the subsequent appointment of counsel to act on his behalf places the accused, for practical legal purposes in the same position he was in prior to his arraignment.’ But even if it be assumed that the arraignment was a ‘critical stage’ of this non-capital case (cf. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. at 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 ), appellant did not plead guilty (cf. White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. at 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050 ). Neither is it contended that any incriminating statements were elicited in the absence of counsel (cf. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 , 78 S.Ct. 1287 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1448”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 301 F. Supp. 2d 698 - Bonnell v. Mitchel

2. “One cannot review what took place in the Court of Common Pleas prior to trial without being impressed that appellant showed himself to be uncommonly wise in the ways of the criminal courts and, from the beginning, was a rather impudent defendant, bent on delaying trial-court proceedings by any and every means he could conjure up, even to the verge of contempt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Salliey