State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 412 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 419 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Upon a review of the contested testimony, we find that it was relevant, in that it tended to disprove the accuracy of the jail records, which was a question in dispute in the instant cause. The contested evidence went to the credibility of the various jail records by demonstrating the overall inefficiency of the persons and the system in which they were maintained and the general lack of inmate supervision. 5 Moreover, upon an examination of the record, we find the admission of certain of the testimony occurred without an objection and that a great proportion of this testimony occurred during cross-examination. The trial judge is posited with broad discretion in controlling cross-examination, and the appellant has the burden to show a patent abuse of discretion. We find, in the instant cause, that the admission of this testimony was relevant to the credibility of the jail records which support appellant's alibi and was neither an abuse of discretion nor a resultant prejudicial harm to appellant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marshall v. Walker

2. ““ * * [UJnless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required. See, Chapman v. Calif., 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). In this case, we conclude that the “minds of an average jury” would not have found the State’s case significantly less persuasive had the testimony * * * been excluded. The admission into evidence of these statements, therefore, was at most harmless error.’ ” State v. Walker (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 208, 216 [ 9 O.O.3d 152 ] (quoting Schneble v. Florida [1972], 405 U.S. 427 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Ohio App. 3d 149 - State v. Fowler

3. “`[a]ttempts by persons other than the accused to bribe witnesses * * * are evidence against the accused when, but only when, it is proven that he was connected with such attempts. Acts and statements of third persons, not known or authorized by him, are inadmissible.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Nicholson, Unpublished Decision (4-7-2005)