State v. Hessler’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
243 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 245 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. LaMar (2002), State v. Herring (2002)
243 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 United States v. Olano · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Smith v. Phillips · Allen v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith. A juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror, only after some outside evidence of that act or event has been presented. However a juror may testify without the presentation of any outside evidence concerning any threat, any bribe, any attempted threat or bribe, or any improprieties of any officer of the court. A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying will not be received for these purposes.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“`whether the remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the defendant.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“As a reviewing court, we show deference to the trial judge, who sees and hears the events and thus is in a better position to accurately evaluate the situation and determine the appropriate scope of inquiry. State v. Huertas (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 22 , 29 , 553 N.E.2d 1058 , 1067 ; United States v. Ramos (C.A.5, 1995), 71 F.3d 1150 , 1153-1154 . Therefore, we employ an abuse-of-discretion standard and will not reverse the trial court unless it has handled the alleged juror misconduct or ruled upon the post-trial motion in an `unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner'. State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 , 149 .”
3 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.