green
Positive treatment
6.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sherrard, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2003)
(2×)
See State v. Carter (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 34 , 38 , certiorari denied (1980), 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (stating that there is no easy or exact way to determine what someone subjectively understands, however, "[i]f the defendant receives the proper information, then [a court] can ordinarily assume that he understands that information.") This Court cannot presume that Appellant understood the rights he was waiving from a silent record; the record clearly indicates, and the state agrees, that Appellant was not_told that he could receive life imprisonment and two years mandat…
discussed
Cited "see"
Lee v. United States
(2×)
“In this context, the [trial] court’s discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad,” because a trial judge “is usually well aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions.” Thornton, 1 F.3d at 155 ; see Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Thornton
(2×)
See Grooms v. Wainmight, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) (“The judge’s decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences.”), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A \Moochie\"
(2×)
See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) ("The judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences."), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jimmy Dewitt Webster, Sr., Candido Daniel Santiago, Barry Weinreich, Joe Buhajla, Arthur Byron Murphy, and Clarence Royalston
(2×)
See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 348 (5th Cir.) (“Moreover, a juror’s statement that ‘[from] what I heard already he’s guilty’ ... before the defendant presents any evidence does not reflect serious prejudice____”), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980).
examined
Cited "see"
Jonathan W. Batten v. David Scurr, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary
(4×)
See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 345 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Press
(2×)
See United States v. Kralik, 611 F.2d 343 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1603 , 63 L.Ed.2d 788 (1980); United States v. Morris, 491 F.Supp. 222 (S.D.Ga.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ruby, Unpublished Decision (7-9-2004)
(2×)
In this context, "substantial compliance" means that "under the totality of the circumstances the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving." State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86 ; see, also, State v. Carter (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 34 , 38 , certiorari denied, (1980), 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 . {¶ 10} A defendant who challenges his guilty plea on the basis that it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made must show a prejudicial effect.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Medrano-Quiroz v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 [ 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 ] ... (1980) (Trial judge did not err in refusing to interrogate jurors about one juror's statement "from what I heard he's already guilty" made after close of the prosecution's case because statement did not reflect serious prejudice but only objective evaluation of evidence to date); United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied 441 U.S. 922 [ 99 S.Ct. 2030 , 60 L.Ed.2d 395 ]... (1979) (court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing when after a part…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mark K. Darulis
See also, United States v. Kralik, 611 F.2d 343 (10th Cir.1979) (finding that officers not required to obtain an additional warrant for search of suitcase found in trunk of automobile where officers already had a warrant authorizing search of the automobile for a sawed-off shotgun concealed therein), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Boylan
(2×)
See, e.g., Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 789 (1980) (Trial judge did not err in refusing to interrogate jurors about one juror’s statement “from what I heard he’s already guilty” made after close of the prosecution’s case because statement did not reflect serious prejudice but only objective evaluation of evidence to date); United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974 (5th Cir.1978), ce rt. denied, 441 U.S. 922 , 99 S.Ct. 2030 , 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979) (court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing when after a pa…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Oscar Brown Boykins, Jr. v. Louie L. Wainwright
(4×)
See also Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) (where district court decided issue on the merits without objection from the state, appellate court will reach merits on appeal although petitioner did not properly exhaust state remedies), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Sammie Felder, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections
(4×)
See e.g., Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anderson v. South Carolina
(2×)
See, e.g., Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953 , 100 S.Ct. 1605 , 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980) (waiver of exhaustion requirement by State); Stanley v. Wainwright, 604 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 , 100 S.Ct. 3019 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1980) (unexhausted claim raised by co-petitioner); Simmons v. Wainwright, 585 F.2d 95 (5th Cir. 1978) (unexhausted claim not of “constitutional dimension”); Galtieri v. Wainwright, 582 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1978), rehearing denied, 587 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1978) (undue delay by State); Jones v. Shell, 572 F.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carter
v.
Ohio
v.
Ohio
No. 79-6068.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 31, 1980.
Published
Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certio-rari denied.