State v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

345 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 345 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment, information, or complaint, or by such joinder for trial together of indictments, informations or complaints, the court shall order an election or separate trial of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide such other relief as justice requires.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hupp, 2008-L-052 (3-27-2009) · 127 Ohio App. 3d 511 - State v. Thompson

2. ““A defendant who asserts that joinder is improper has the burden of making an affirmative showing that his rights will be prejudiced thereby. Cf. Fisher v. United States (C.A. 8, 1963), 324 F. 2d 775 , certiorari denied, 377 U.S. 999 ; United States v. Gimelstob (C.A. 3, 1973), 475 F. 2d 157 , certiorari denied, 414 U.S. 828 . In the cause at bar, defendant’s allegation with respect to the cumulation of evidence is premised upon cases wherein courts have found a tendency of some juries in complex trials not to segregate the proof required on each separate offense, but to convict for all crimes on the combined proof offered upon all offenses. Such convictions thus obtained, when the evidence if considered separately would be insufficient to sustain all the convictions, are improper. Drew v. United States (C.A.D.C. 1964), 331 F. 2d 85, 88 ; Dunaway v. United States (C.A.D.C. 1953), 205 F. 2d 23, 26 ; United States v. Lotsch (C.A. 2, 1939), 102 F. 2d 35, 36 . “This essential problem is not generally held to be present, however, where the evidence relative to the various charges is direct and uncomplicated, so that the jury is believed capable of segregating the proof on each charge. Drew v. United States, supra. In our view, the direct and substantial nature of the state’s case herein debilitates defendant’s assertion that the jury based its finding of guilt upon a cumulation of the evidence. See Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250 ; Langford v. United States (C.A.D.C.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Berry · State v. Ecker

3. ““[A] challenge to the factual veracity of a warrant affidavit must be supported by an offer of proof which specifically outlines the portions of the affidavit alleged to be false, and the supporting reasons for the defendant’s claim. This offer of proof should include the submission of affidavits or otherwise reliable statements, or their absence should be satisfactorily explained.” State v. Roberts (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 170, 178 , 16 O.O.3d 201, 206 , 405 N.E.2d 247, 253 . See, also, State v. Collins (Feb. 28, 1991), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 58003 and 58004, unreported, 1991 WL 26656 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 152 Ohio App. 3d 629 - State v. Condon · State v. Martin, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2007)