State v. Puente’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “R.C. 2313.41 , relating to challenging an array of grand or petit jurors, states that `no indictment shall be quashed or verdict set aside for any such irregularity * * * if the jurors who formed the same possessed the requisite qualifications to act as jurors.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reed, 07ca0026-M (4-21-2008) · State v. Davis, 07ca0028-M (3-10-2008)

2. “[u]nless prejudice to the defendant or the systematic and intentional exclusion of a group is shown, we will not reverse a judgment because of minor and technical defects in jury-selection procedures.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Seymour, Unpublished Decision (7-14-2004) · 64 Ohio App. 3d 314 - State v. Asberry

3. “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community, (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community, and (3) the under-representation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Vunda · 64 Ohio App. 3d 314 - State v. Asberry