89 Ohio App. 3d 45 - State v. Ingol’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Unless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists or unless the defendant objects to multiple representation, the court need not initiate an inquiry into the propriety of such representation. . . . It is not constitutionally mandated that a trial court inquire of co-defendants whether they wish to have separate counsel. . . . A trial court is not obligated to make an inquiry as a matter of course. An attorney representing multiple defendants in criminal proceedings is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of the trial. . . . In the absence of special circumstances, it seems reasonable for the trial court to assume that multiple representation entails no conflict or that the lawyer and his clients knowingly accepted such risk of conflict as may be inherent in such a representation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Terry, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2007)

2. ““When reviewing a claim of conflict of interest, this court must resolve two distinct issues. The first issue is whether the trial court had a duty to investigate the potential conflict of interest. See [Gillard, 64 Ohio St.3d 304 , 595 N.E.2d 878 ]. If the answer to that inquiry is affirmative and the trial court did not make such an inquiry, then the case must be remanded to the trial court for its inquiry as to whether an actual conflict of interest existed. Id. at 312 , 595 N.E.2d at 883 . If the answer to that inquiry is negative, then this court must determine whether an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the attorney’s performance. State v. Manross (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 180 , 532 N.E.2d 735 , syllabus, certiorari denied (1989), 490 U.S. 1083 , 109 S.Ct. 2106 , 104 L.Ed.2d 667 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson

3. “[w]here a trial court knows or reasonably should know of an attorney's possible conflict of interest in the representation of a person charged with a crime, the trial court has an affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict of interest actually exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dunham, Unpublished Decision (7-15-2005)