Case Citator › State v. Jenkins

State v. Jenkins

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
15 Ohio St. 3d 164
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
32 of 32
Citing cases (total)
32
Treatment dates
1985
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. State v. Jenkins remains authoritative on many Ohio capital sentencing issues, but its capital juror exclusion standard was displaced by later Supreme Court law. All 32 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. In State v. Rogers, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that Wainwright v. Witt modified the Witherspoon standard Jenkins had applied, while reaffirming Jenkins's conclusion that general death qualification is permissible. State v. Brooks later expressly harmonized Jenkins's life verdict unanimity rule with the procedure for a deadlocked jury.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

32 later cases cite State v. Jenkins; 32 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Jenkins?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court replaced the strict “automatic” opposition and “unmistakable clarity” tests Jenkins had applied when deciding whether a prospective capital juror could be excluded for cause.

    Wainwright v. Witt · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We therefore take this opportunity to clarify our decision in Witherspoon, and to reaffirm the above-quoted standard from Adams as the proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment. That standard is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” ... We note that, in addition to dispensing with Witherspoon’s reference to “automatic” decisionmaking, this standard likewise does not require that a juror’s bias be proved with “unmistakable clarity.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Jenkins and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace