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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
The United States v. James Beros, Titus McCue A/K/A Tim McCune Appeal of James M. Berosgreen2 sentences2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ,] 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ], 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 | 3 | 5 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2008See Johnson, 46 Ohio St.3d at 105 , 545 N.E.2d 636 (“where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts ” [emphasis added]). 2008See Johnson, 46 Ohio St.3d at 105 , 545 N.E.2d 636 (“where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts ” [emphasis added]). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gardnergreen1 sentence2015Johnson at 104-05 ; see also State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-2787 , ¶ 49- 52; State v. Marrero, 10th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Claret Echeverry
green
2 sentences2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ,] 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ], 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 | 3 | 1989–2015 |
United States v. Claret Echeverry
green
2 sentences2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ,] 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ], 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 | 3 | 1989–2015 |
United States v. Adrian Norman Payseno
green
2 sentences2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ,] 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ], 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 | 3 | 1989–2015 |
Scott Timothy Berrisford v. Frank W. Wood, Warden
green
2 sentences2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ,] 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ], 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 | 3 | 1989–2015 |
United States v. Franklin Delano Gipson
green
2 sentences2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ,] 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 2015United States v. Gipson (C.A. 5, 1977), 553 F.2d 453, 458 ; accord United States v. Beros, [ 833 F.2d 455 ], 461 [(3d Cir.1987)] (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, an augmented general instruction may be necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Echeverry (C.A. 9, 1983), 698 F.2d 375 , modified (1983), 719 F.2d 974, 975 ; United States v. Payseno (C.A. 9, 1986), 782 F.2d 832, 837 ; but, see, Berrisford v. Wood (C.A. 8, 1987), 826 F.2d 747 | 3 | 1989–2015 |
United States v. Joe S. Duncan and Michael M. Downing
green
1 sentence1998See, also, State v. Johnson (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 96, 104-105 , 545 N.E.2d 636, 643-645 ; United States v. Beros (C.A.3, 1987), 833 F.2d 455, 461 (where there appears a possibility of jury confusion in light of the allegations made and the statute charged, the general unanimity instruction does not suffice; instead, an augmented general instruction is necessary to ensure that the jury understands its duty to unanimously agree to a particular set of facts); United States v. Duncan (C.A.6,1988), 850 F.2d 1104 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.