Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Victor Colon v. Walter Fogg, Superintendent, Greenhaven Correctional Facilitygreen1 sentence2021See Colon v. Fogg, 603 F.2d 403, 407 (2d Cir.1979) (“Such an inquiry is usually the only practical method of ascertaining whether the joint representation may prejudice the defendant and, if so, whether he nevertheless desires to make an informed waiver of his right to independent representation”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deckergreen2 sentences2020The trial court informed defense counsel, “[I]f you determine that you need an investigator, the Court is willing to appoint an investigator.” (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel never requested an investigator. {¶ 151} Counsel has a duty “to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland at 691 ; see State v. Decker, 28 Ohio St.3d 137, 140 , 502 N.E.2d 647 (1986). 2020The trial court informed defense counsel, “[I]f you determine that you need an investigator, the Court is willing to appoint an investigator.” (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel never requested an investigator. {¶ 151} Counsel has a duty “to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland at 691 ; see State v. Decker, 28 Ohio St.3d 137, 140 , 502 N.E.2d 647 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Powellgreen2 sentences2017State v. Powell, 177 Ohio App.3d 825 , 2008-Ohio-4171 , 896 N.E.2d 212, ¶ 44 (4th Dist.). {¶57} In this matter, the trial court informed defense counsel that a self-defense instruction would not be given because “[t]here’s no evidence of self-defense here. 2017State v. Powell, 177 Ohio App.3d 825 , 2008-Ohio-4171 , 896 N.E.2d 212, ¶ 44 (4th Dist.). {¶57} In this matter, the trial court informed defense counsel that a self-defense instruction would not be given because “[t]here’s no evidence of self-defense here. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences2006The court wrote that “[t]his Court has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion or compromises the voluntariness of a subsequent informed waiver.” Id. at 312 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 . {¶27} Seibert followed Elstad in rejecting a “fruit of the poisonous tree” analysis or “cat out of the bag” analysis. 2006The court wrote that “[t]his Court has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion or compromises the voluntariness of a subsequent informed waiver.” Id. at 312 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 . {¶27} Seibert followed Elstad in rejecting a “fruit of the poisonous tree” analysis or “cat out of the bag” analysis. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Ashworth
green
2 sentences2000The trial judge specifically asked appellant if that was accurate, and appellant replied, “Yes, it is, 12 January Term, 2000 Your Honor.” On the second day of the mitigation hearing, the court informed the defense that it would not instruct the jury on residual doubt based on the decision in Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d at 56-57 , 656 N.E.2d at 632 . {¶ 41} As we noted recently in State v. Ashworth (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 56, 63 , 706 N.E.2d 1231, 1238 , even if the court attempted to require an attorney to present mitigating evidence, it cannot force an unwilling defendant to provide that evidence to 2000The trial judge specifically asked appellant if that was accurate, and appellant replied, “Yes, it is, 12 January Term, 2000 Your Honor.” On the second day of the mitigation hearing, the court informed the defense that it would not instruct the jury on residual doubt based on the decision in Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d at 56-57 , 656 N.E.2d at 632 . {¶ 41} As we noted recently in State v. Ashworth (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 56, 63 , 706 N.E.2d 1231, 1238 , even if the court attempted to require an attorney to present mitigating evidence, it cannot force an unwilling defendant to provide that evidence to | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Beeman
green
2 sentences2000The trial judge specifically asked appellant if that was accurate, and appellant replied, “Yes, it is, Your Honor.” On the second day of the mitigation hearing, the court informed the defense that it would not instruct the jury on residual doubt based on the decision in Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d at 56-57 , 656 N.E.2d at 632 . 2000The trial judge specifically asked appellant if that was accurate, and appellant replied, “Yes, it is, 12 January Term, 2000 Your Honor.” On the second day of the mitigation hearing, the court informed the defense that it would not instruct the jury on residual doubt based on the decision in Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d at 56-57 , 656 N.E.2d at 632 . {¶ 41} As we noted recently in State v. Ashworth (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 56, 63 , 706 N.E.2d 1231, 1238 , even if the court attempted to require an attorney to present mitigating evidence, it cannot force an unwilling defendant to provide that evidence to | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Garner
green
2 sentences2000The trial judge specifically asked appellant if that was accurate, and appellant replied, “Yes, it is, Your Honor.” On the second day of the mitigation hearing, the court informed the defense that it would not instruct the jury on residual doubt based on the decision in Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d at 56-57 , 656 N.E.2d at 632 . 2000The trial judge specifically asked appellant if that was accurate, and appellant replied, “Yes, it is, 12 January Term, 2000 Your Honor.” On the second day of the mitigation hearing, the court informed the defense that it would not instruct the jury on residual doubt based on the decision in Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d at 56-57 , 656 N.E.2d at 632 . {¶ 41} As we noted recently in State v. Ashworth (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 56, 63 , 706 N.E.2d 1231, 1238 , even if the court attempted to require an attorney to present mitigating evidence, it cannot force an unwilling defendant to provide that evidence to | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Torres
green
1 sentence2022Truss, citing State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2022To be clear, " 'there is always the possibility of prejudice in joining separate instances of any offense in the same indictment.' " Id., quoting Strobel at 32 . {¶ 43} Appellant must provide specific information to allow the trial court to make an informed analysis regarding the favoring of joinder versus ensuring a defendant a fair trial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
1 sentence2020The trial court informed defense counsel he needed to "prove it was from her and when it was." Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2003Additionally, there must occur, in open court, a colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant himself, extensive enough for the judge to make a reasonable determination that the defendant has been advised and is aware of the implications of voluntarily relinquishing a constitutional right." State v. Walker (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 352 , 358 . {¶ 19} The record reflects that both were done in this case. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Morris
green
1 sentence1993In light of Jells and Morris, 3 supra, we interpret the provision to mean that there must be further evidence on the record, in addition to the signed writing, *358 that a defendant has voluntarily made an informed waiver of his constitutional right to a trial by jury. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.