76 Ohio App. 3d 664 - State v. Draughn’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
135 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Hand (2006), 116 Ohio App. 3d 615 - State v. Carpenter (1996)
135 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Berger v. United States · Drope v. Missouri · State v. Maurer · State v. Smith · State v. DePew
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to the defense witnesses, including the defendant, the prosecutor may comment upon the testimony, and suggest the conclusions to be drawn therefrom. He can say, `The evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant is lying, is not telling the truth, is scheming, has ulterior motives, including his own hide, for not telling *Page 26 the truth.' See State v. Strobel (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 31 , 554 N.E.2d 916 . He may not say, `I believe the defendant is lying,' for the same reasons as above. {¶ 107}”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he prosecutor may not invite the jury to judge the case upon standards or grounds other than the evidence and law of the case. Thus, he cannot inflame the passion and prejudice of the jury by appealing to community abhorrence or expectations with respect to crime in general, or crime of the specific type involved in the case.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“`I believe these witnesses,' because such argument invades the province of the jury, and invites the jury to decide the case based upon the credibility and status of the *Page 14 prosecutor. In a sense, such argument by the prosecutor injects himself into the trial as a thirteenth juror, and claims to himself the first vote in the jury room.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.