Witt standard in Ohio

9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2005 0 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Rogersgreen ohio · 1985 · cited in 6 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1988–2005 2 sentences 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required). 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required).	1	6
Rogers v. Ohiogreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1988–2005 2 sentences 1991This court adopted and applied the Witt standard in State v. Rogers (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 174 , 17 OBR 414, 478 N.E. 2d 984 , at paragraph three of the syllabus, vacated on other grounds (1985), 474 U.S. 1002 . 1991This court adopted and applied the Witt standard in State v. Rogers (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 174 , 17 OBR 414, 478 N.E. 2d 984 , at paragraph three of the syllabus, vacated on other grounds (1985), 474 U.S. 1002 .	1	3
Bender v. Williamsport Area School Districtgreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Rogers (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 174 , 17 OBR 414, 478 N.E.2d 984 , paragraph three of the syllabus, vacated on other grounds by Rogers v. Ohio (1985), 474 U.S. 1002 , 106 S.Ct. 518 , 88 L.Ed.2d 452 ; State v. Beuke, 38 Ohio St.3d at 38 , 526 N.E.2d 274 . 2005See State v. Rogers (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 174 , 17 OBR 414, 478 N.E.2d 984 , paragraph three of the syllabus, vacated on other grounds by Rogers v. Ohio (1985), 474 U.S. 1002 , 106 S.Ct. 518 , 88 L.Ed.2d 452 ; State v. Beuke, 38 Ohio St.3d at 38 , 526 N.E.2d 274 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Beuke green ohio · 1988 2 sentences 1990Subsequent to the Witherspoon decision and the enactment of R.C. 2945.25, the United States Supreme Court announced a new standard for removal of prospective jurors in Wainwright v. Witt, supra. The Witt standard was thereafter adopted and applied by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Rogers, supra. See, also, State v. Beuke (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 29 ; State in. 1990Subsequent to the Witherspoon decision and the enactment of R.C. 2945.25, the United States Supreme Court announced a new standard for removal of prospective jurors in Wainwright v. Witt, supra. The Witt standard was thereafter adopted and applied by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Rogers, supra. See, also, State v. Beuke (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 29 ; State in.	3	1990–2005
State v. Scott green ohio · 1986 2 sentences 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required). 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required).	2	2002–2004
Wainwright v. Witt green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required). 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required).	2	1988–2002
State v. Buell green ohio · 1986 2 sentences 2002Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 178 ; Scott , 26 Ohio St.3d at 97 ; State v. Buell (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 124 , 139 ; Wilson , Lorain App No. 92CA5396. 2002Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 178 ; Scott , 26 Ohio St.3d at 97 ; State v. Buell (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 124 , 139 ; Wilson , Lorain App No. 92CA5396.	2	1988–2002
State v. Greer green ohio · 1988 2 sentences 2002State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236 , 248 (emphasis added); Wilson , Lorain App No. 92CA5396 (emphasis added). 1995According to State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 236, 244 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 394 , the doctrine of waiver applies in capital cases and therefore appellant waived this error, if any existed, as it pertains to potential juror Jurecki. {¶ 39} To determine whether potential jurors Leib and Frankel should have been dismissed for cause, we apply the previously mentioned Witt standard of whether the prospective juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties according to their instructions and oath.	2	1995–2002
Adams v. Texas green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required). 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required).	2	1988–2002
State v. Madrigal green ohio · 2000 2 sentences 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required). 2002Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , citing Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 38 , 45 ; State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378 , 391 , citing Rogers , 17 Ohio St.3d at 174 ; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 97 (explaining that the Witt test dispenses with the "automatic" decision-making and the unmistakable clarity standards that the Witherspoon test required).	1	2002–2002
State v. Mills green ohio · 1992 2 sentences 1999Ohio utilizes the Witt standard, see State v. Mills (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 357 . 1999Ohio utilizes the Witt standard, see State v. Mills (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 357 .	1	1999–1999
Layman v. Binns green ohio · 1988 1 sentence 1995According to State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 236, 244 , 530 N.E.2d 382, 394 , the doctrine of waiver applies in capital cases and therefore appellant waived this error, if any existed, as it pertains to potential juror Jurecki. {¶ 39} To determine whether potential jurors Leib and Frankel should have been dismissed for cause, we apply the previously mentioned Witt standard of whether the prospective juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties according to their instructions and oath.	1	1995–1995
State v. DePew green ohio · 1988 2 sentences 1990DePew, supra; and State in. 1990DePew, supra; and State in.	1	1990–1990

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.04 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.03 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.27 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.25 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 69 (1961–2025) FL 44 (1982–2024) AL 15 (1991–2018) NJ 11 (1979–2026) OH 9 (1988–2005) OK 7 (2007–2021) CO 7 (1990–2007) WA 7 (2006–2018) NC 6 (1987–1996) MD 4 (1990–2018) TX 2 (1992–1996) CT 2 (2001–2004) LA 2 (1998–2007) MS 2 (1993–1997) GA 2 (1997–1997)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check