State v. Stojetz’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Hale (2008), State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion) (2016)
3 federal appellate · 131 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 Strickland v. Washington · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · State v. Long · Adams v. Texas
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not constitute a plain error * * * unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I During jury selection in a capital case, the trial court must ask each prospective sentencing juror whether the juror's views on the death penalty would prevent or substantially impair the juror's ability to consider a life sentence if the defendant is found guilty of aggravated murder and the aggravating circumstance. Life qualification of each prospective juror is required whenever the trial court death qualifies the jurors by asking them if their views on the death penalty would prevent or substantially impair their ability to consider the death penalty in the case before them. PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. II John Stojetz's death sentence is inappropriate. Damico Watkins['s] death resulted from his own threats against Stojetz and Stojetz's post-traumatic stress disorder. PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. III When trial counsel fail to conduct an adequate voir dire, fail to object to inadmissible evidence, fail to request a separation of witnesses, fail to conduct an adequate investigation of the case, fail to object to victim impact evidence, present a confusing explanation of the mitigation weighing process, fail to adequately present evidence of a capital defendant's post-traumatic stress disorder, and fail to adequately prepare defendant's mitigation expert, a capital defendant is deprived of the right to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, §§ 10 and 16 of the Ohio”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stojetz v. Ishee · State v. Horton“To warrant reversal, `[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'”
2 later decisions 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.