Legal Opinion

State v. Manross

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1988No. Nos. 87-1530 and 87-1692PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The sole issue presented in this consolidated action is the determination of the appropriate standard for review of criminal convictions where the record shows that the trial court failed to inquire of co-defendants whether they wished to have separate counsel and where a potential conflict of interest arguably existed by reason of their joint representation by a single attorney.

Our analysis of the issues raised in this case must necessarily follow a two-tier approach. First, we determine whether the trial court must, as a matter of course, inquire of co-defendants whether they wish to have…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. People v. MacerolaNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. United States v. William H. Miller, United States of America v. Maurice GregoryCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. State v. GetsyOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State v. KeithOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. GillardOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. DillonOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016

55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API