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.
8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Grossgreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Gross , 97 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-5524 , 776 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 25 (considering the Manson factors in determining reliability of identification); State v. Keith , 79 Ohio St.3d 514 , 684 N.E.2d 47 (1997). 2017See, e.g., State v. Gross , 97 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-5524 , 776 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 25 (considering the Manson factors in determining reliability of identification); State v. Keith , 79 Ohio St.3d 514 , 684 N.E.2d 47 (1997). | 3 | 3 |
Manson v. Brathwaitegreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d at 24 , 537 N.E.2d 188 . {¶ 46} The trial court compounded this problem by delivering the instruction at a trial during which it also allowed the defense to present expert testimony on the 11 The Manson test refers to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), although the Court drew the substance of the test from its earlier decision in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 2019See, e.g., Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d at 24 , 537 N.E.2d 188 . {¶ 46} The trial court compounded this problem by delivering the instruction at a trial during which it also allowed the defense to present expert testimony on the 11 The Manson test refers to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), although the Court drew the substance of the test from its earlier decision in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 2 | 5 |
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d at 24 , 537 N.E.2d 188 . {¶ 46} The trial court compounded this problem by delivering the instruction at a trial during which it also allowed the defense to present expert testimony on the 11 The Manson test refers to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), although the Court drew the substance of the test from its earlier decision in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 2019See, e.g., Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d at 24 , 537 N.E.2d 188 . {¶ 46} The trial court compounded this problem by delivering the instruction at a trial during which it also allowed the defense to present expert testimony on the 11 The Manson test refers to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), although the Court drew the substance of the test from its earlier decision in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Howardgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d at 24 , 537 N.E.2d 188 . {¶ 46} The trial court compounded this problem by delivering the instruction at a trial during which it also allowed the defense to present expert testimony on the 11 The Manson test refers to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), although the Court drew the substance of the test from its earlier decision in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 2019See, e.g., Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d at 24 , 537 N.E.2d 188 . {¶ 46} The trial court compounded this problem by delivering the instruction at a trial during which it also allowed the defense to present expert testimony on the 11 The Manson test refers to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), although the Court drew the substance of the test from its earlier decision in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Keith
green
2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Gross , 97 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-5524 , 776 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 25 (considering the Manson factors in determining reliability of identification); State v. Keith , 79 Ohio St.3d 514 , 684 N.E.2d 47 (1997). 2017See, e.g., State v. Gross , 97 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-5524 , 776 N.E.2d 1061 , ¶ 25 (considering the Manson factors in determining reliability of identification); State v. Keith , 79 Ohio St.3d 514 , 684 N.E.2d 47 (1997). | 3 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Broom
green
2 sentences2019The apparent expert consensus notwithstanding, this statement directly conflicts with one factor of the Manson test for the evaluation of eyewitness identifications, which the Ohio Supreme Court adopted in its decision in State v. Broom, -25- 40 Ohio St.3d 277 , 533 N.E.2d 682 (1988).11 {¶ 45} Furthermore, the instruction effectively counsels jurors to discount the accuracy of witnesses’ memories, as opposed to cautioning jurors objectively that witnesses’ memories might be incorrect. 2019The apparent expert consensus notwithstanding, this statement directly conflicts with one factor of the Manson test for the evaluation of eyewitness identifications, which the Ohio Supreme Court adopted in its decision in State v. Broom, -25- 40 Ohio St.3d 277 , 533 N.E.2d 682 (1988).11 {¶ 45} Furthermore, the instruction effectively counsels jurors to discount the accuracy of witnesses’ memories, as opposed to cautioning jurors objectively that witnesses’ memories might be incorrect. | 2 | 2012–2019 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences2002But the ultimate focus in determining whether reversible error exists is not just on whether the practice was used, but on whether it was so suggestive as to create “ ‘ “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” ’ ” Id., quoting Neil v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 198 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (quoting Simmons v. United States [1968], 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 ). {¶ 25} Our consideration of the Manson factors, 432 U.S. at 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 , leads us to conclude that there is not a “ ‘very substantial likelihood of irre 2002But the ultimate focus in determining whether reversible error exists is not just on whether the practice was used, but on whether it was so suggestive as to create “ ‘ “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” ’ ” Id., quoting Neil v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 198 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (quoting Simmons v. United States [1968], 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 ). {¶ 25} Our consideration of the Manson factors, 432 U.S. at 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 , leads us to conclude that there is not a “ ‘very substantial likelihood of irre | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences2002But the ultimate focus in determining whether reversible error exists is not just on whether the practice was used, but on whether it was so suggestive as to create “ ‘ “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” ’ ” Id., quoting Neil v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 198 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (quoting Simmons v. United States [1968], 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 ). {¶ 25} Our consideration of the Manson factors, 432 U.S. at 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 , leads us to conclude that there is not a “ ‘very substantial likelihood of irre 2002But the ultimate focus in determining whether reversible error exists is not just on whether the practice was used, but on whether it was so suggestive as to create “ ‘ “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” ’ ” Id., quoting Neil v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188, 198 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (quoting Simmons v. United States [1968], 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 ). {¶ 25} Our consideration of the Manson factors, 432 U.S. at 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 , leads us to conclude that there is not a “ ‘very substantial likelihood of irre | 2 | 2002–2002 |
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.