State v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 210 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 238 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The principal mode, provided by our Constitution and laws, for deciding questions of fact in criminal cases, is by jury verdict. In a large proportion of cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected. Although the verdict must reflect the verdict of each individual juror and not mere acquiescence in the conclusion of your fellows, each question submitted to you should be examined with proper regard and deference to the opinions of others. You should consider it desirable that the case be decided. You are selected in the same manner, and from the same source, as any future jury would be. There is no reason to believe the case will ever be submitted to a jury more capable, impartial, or *Page 6 intelligent than this one. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that more or clearer evidence will be produced by either side. It is your duty to decide the case, if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen to one another's arguments with a disposition to be persuaded. Do not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your position if you are convinced it is erroneous. If there is disagreement, all jurors should reexamine their positions, given that a unanimous verdict has not been reached. Jurors for acquittal should consider whether their doubt is reasonable, considering that it is not shared by others, equally honest, who have heard the same evidence, with the same desire to arrive at the truth, and under the same oath. Likewise, jurors for conviction should as”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 159 Ohio App. 3d 476 - State v. Berry · 172 Ohio App. 3d 86 - State v. Clifton

2. “must be balanced, asking all jurors to reconsider their opinions in light of the fact that others do not agree.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lewis, Unpublished Decision (10-2-2003) · State v. Carson, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2005)

3. ““The Allen [v. United States (1896), 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 ] charge has long been the subject of criticism from legal scholars. The brunt of this criticism is directed at the potentially coercive impact the language of the Allen charge can have on a jury. The criticism centers on the effect of language advising the jury that a decision must be reached, thereby depriving either the state or the defendant of the possibility of a hung jury and a mistrial.” (Footnote omitted.) Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d at 22 , 537 N.E.2d at 191 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 Ohio App. 3d 93 - State v. Andricks