Legal Opinion

State v. Osborne

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1976No. 76-791PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant Osborne asserts nine propositions of law.

In her first proposition, appellant claims that numerous errors occurred which, considered together, denied her due process of law and the right to a fair and impartial trial. One such error concerns the fact that the summons for special veniremen contained her name on its face; that, after the first summons was exhausted, the second summons also had her name on its face with the effect heretofore stated; that Crim. R. 24(F), which refers to the selection and seating of alternate jurors, was not strictly followed; and that extensive publicity…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Irvin v. DowdSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Sheppard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Estes v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Rideau v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. State v. BaylessOhio Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. State v. MaurerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. DePewOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. GetsyOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. GoffOhio Supreme Court · 1998

36 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