O’connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 (1966). · Go Syfert
Search
O’connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 (1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1996 · …failure to object to a practice that ohio had long allowed cannot strip him of his right to attack the practice following its invalidation by this court. ✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1971 · …griffin applied to all convictions which had not become final on the date of the griffin judgment ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · 2 courts · …reviewing courts have traditionally excused parties for failing to raise an issue at trial where an objection would have been futile or wholly unsupported by substantive law then in existence at p. 93 ⚠ not in text
384 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 40 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Castellano (calctapp, 2019-03-26) · Strongest negative: State v. Armstrong (iowa, 1972-12-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" State v. Armstrong (3×)
Iowa · 1972 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Castellano
Cal. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., O’Connor v. Ohio (1966) 385 U.S. 92, 93 [ 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 ]; People v. Doherty (1967) 67 Cal.2d 9, 13-14 ; see generally 14 People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 92 [“‘[r]eviewing courts have traditionally excused parties for failing to raise an issue at trial where an objection would have been futile or wholly unsupported by substantive law then in existence’”].) We similarly decline to apply the forfeiture doctrine to Castellano’s constitutional challenge. b.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gomez
Cal. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
(O’Connor v. Ohio (1966) 385 U.S. 92, 93 [defendant’s claim not barred when U.S. Supreme Court issued new rule of law after defendant’s trial]; People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 350, fn. 5 [failure to object at trial excused “‘“where to require defense counsel to raise an objection ‘would place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law and encourage fruitless objections in other situations where defendants might hope that an established rule of evidence would be changed on appeal’”’”]; People v. DeSantiago (1969) 71 Cal.2d 18 , …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carroll v. State
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
The view that a defendant’s failure to object to denial of the right against self-incrimination does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the right to assert such error on appeal was supported inferentially in O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 93 , 87 S.Ct. 252, 253-54 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189, 191 (1966) (holding state procedural rule requiring trial objections could not bar an appellant from asserting a violation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination), and expressly in Walker v. United States, 404 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir.1968) (holding objection unnecessary where violation of …
examined Cited as authority (rule) Logan v. Auger (3×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Iowa · 1977 · confidence medium
O’Connor, supra, 385 U.S. at 93 , 87 S.Ct. at 253.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Adams
D. Conn. · 1971 · confidence medium
To support its decisive shift from those cases, it did not offer a different reading of the controlling opinions of the United States Supreme Court, but rather concluded that: “although it does not appear that the second O’Connor case [ 385 U.S. 92, 93 [ 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 ]] has been expressly overruled, nevertheless the United States Supreme Court would not follow that decision today in determining the applicability of the Griffin rule.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Doherty (2×)
Cal. · 1967 · confidence medium
A number of state and federal courts, however, had not yet fully "perceived the implications of Escobedo . " ( Johnson v. New Jersey (1966) 384 U.S. 719 , 733 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 882, 892 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 ].) "Defendants can no more be charged with anticipating [those implications] than can the States." ( O'Connor v. Ohio (1967) 385 U.S. 92, 93 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 189, 196 , 87 S.Ct. 252 ] (per curiam) (referring to Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ]).) In the absence of special circumstances justifying an inference of knowing and intelligent waiver of an Escobedo-Do…
examined Cited "see" Mattos (3×)
Conn. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Ed. 2d 649 (1987). ‘‘If we do not resolve all cases before us on direct review in light of our best under- standing of governing constitutional principles, it is dif- ficult to see why we should so adjudicate any case at all.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 323 ; see O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 93 , 87 S. Ct. 252 , 17 L.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta (6×)
10th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 93 , 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966) (refusing to punish criminal defendant for failing to anticipate a new constitutional rule recognized during the pendency of his direct appeal); United States v. Viola, 35 F.3d 37, 42 (2d Cir.1994) ("If we were to penalize defendants for failing to challenge entrenched precedent, we would be insisting upon an omniscience on the part of defendants about the course of the law that we do not have as judges.
examined Cited "see" Lincoln Isaac v. Ted Engle, Superintendent (6×)
6th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966).
examined Cited "see" State v. Billups (3×)
Minn. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See, O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966); Tehan v. United States ex rel.
examined Cited "see" Page v. Welfare Commissioner (3×)
Conn. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70 , 327 A.2d 576 ; see O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 93 , 87 S. Ct. 252 , 17 L.
discussed Cited "see" Hamling v. United States (2×)
SCOTUS · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 92 (1966).
examined Cited "see" State v. MacOn (3×)
N.J. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
Ed. 2d 934 (1965); see O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 , 17 L.
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Clark (2×)
Pa. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 (1968); Commonwealth ex rel.
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Jefferson (4×)
Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 (1966); Commonwealth v. Stevens, supra *543 at 598-600, 240 A. 2d at 539-40 ; Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 423 Pa. 541 , 226 A. 2d 765 (1967).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth ex rel. Berkery v. Myers (2×)
Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 (1966).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Dickerson (4×)
Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 (1966); Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 423 Pa. 541 , 226 A. 2d 765 (1967).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Baity (4×)
Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 (1966).
examined Cited "see" United States ex rel. Good v. Rundle (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966).
examined Cited "see" Walters v. Warden (3×)
Conn. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
State v. Walters, supra; see O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 , 17 L.
cited Cited "see" Rodger Wyley, 3253 v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
4th Cir. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Connor v. Ohio, 87 S.Ct. 252 (Nov. 15, 1966). 2 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Robison (3×)
11th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 93 , 87 S.Ct. 252, 253 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966) (declining to penalize criminal defendant for failing to anticipate a new rule of law announced after the defendant’s trial). 18 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Cutbirth v. State (3×)
Wyo. · 1988 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 93 , 87 S.Ct. 252, 254 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966), "failure to object to a practice which Ohio had long allowed cannot strip [the petitioner] of his right to attack the practice following its invalidation by this Court,” with McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970), not attack guilty plea sentence based on coerced conviction subsequently subject to invalidation by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), with current cases, Engle v. Isaac, supra, 456 U.S. 107 , 102 S.Ct. 1558 , with Reed v…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Mitchell (6×)
Pa. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966); Kuchinic v. McCrory, 422 Pa. 620 , 222 A.2d 897 (1966).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Jones (4×)
Pa. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also O'Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S. Ct. 252 (1966); Commonwealth v. Baity, 428 Pa. 306 , 237 A. 2d 172 (1968).
examined Cited "see, e.g." George J. Harders v. State of California (3×)
9th Cir. · 1967 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also O’Connor v. State of Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 , 87 S.Ct. 252 , 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Robert G. Sheller
2d Cir. · 1966 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also O’Connor v. Ohio, 87 S.Ct. 252 (1966) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John P. O'COnnOr
v.
Ohio
477.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 14, 1966.
385 U.S. 92
1966 U.S. LEXIS 241
James W. Cowell for petitioner., Harry Friberg for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 127 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

This is the second time petitioner has come before this Court with the claim that the prosecutor’s comment upon his failure to testify during his trial for larceny violated the constitutional right to remain silent. In O’Connor v. Ohio, 382 U. S. 286, we considered this contention when we granted certiorari, vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Ohio for further proceedings in light of our decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609. Following remand, the Ohio court by a closely divided vote upheld petitioner’s conviction solely on the ground that he failed to object to the proscribed comment at his trial and during his first appeal in the state courts. That failure was held to preclude the Ohio appellate courts from considering the claim that petitioner’s federal constitutional rights had been infringed.

The State does not contest the fact that the prosecutor’s remarks violated the constitutional rule announced[*93] in Griffin. Moreover, it is clear the prospective application of that rule, announced in Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, does not prevent petitioner from relying on Griffin, since his conviction was not final when the decision in Griffin was rendered. Indeed, in Tehan we cited our remand of petitioner’s case as evidence that Griffin applied to all convictions which had not become final on the date of the Griffin judgment. 382 U. S., at 409, n. 3. Thus, the only issue now before us is the permissibility of invoking the Ohio procedural rule to defeat petitioner’s meritorious federal claim.

We hold that in these circumstances the failure to object in the state courts cannot bar the petitioner from asserting this federal right. Recognition of the States’ reliance on former decisions of this Court which Griffin overruled was one of the principal grounds for the prospective application of the rule of that case. See Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 417. Defendants can no more be charged with anticipating the Griffin decision than can the States. Petitioner had exhausted his appeals in the Ohio courts and was seeking direct review here when Griffin was handed down. Thus, his failure to object to a practice which Ohio had long allowed cannot strip him of his right to attack the practice following its invalidation by this Court.

We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

It is so ordered.