56 Ohio App. 3d 20 - State v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The United States Supreme Court has provided that the witness-spouse, rather than the defendant-spouse, is the holder of the privilege. See Trammel v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 40 . However, many states, including Ohio, have maintained the rule that the privilege may be invoked by an accused so as to prevent a spouse from becoming a witness for the prosecution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Purvis, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)

2. “* * * Husband or wife shall not testify concerning a communication made by one to the other, or act done by either in the presence of the other, during coverture, unless the communication was made or act done in the known presence or hearing of a third person competent to be a witness, or in case of personal injury by either the husband or wife to the other * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Purvis, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)

3. “In applying this test to the case sub judice, we note that the United States Supreme Court has held that certain privileges, grounded in substantial individual interests, may outweigh the public interest in the search for truth. United States v. Bryan (1950), 339 U.S. 323 , 331 . Such privileges, however, should be narrowly construed and are accepted only to the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Purvis, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)