Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Thompson v. State (2006), Eizember v. State (2007)
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Blockburger v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“So long as the choices are informed ones, counsel's decision to pursue one strategy over others is 'virtually unchallengeable.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. BOWLDS v. STATE · Hancock v. State“Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is generally inadmissible, but may "be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." 12 O.S.2001, § 2404(B). Other crimes evidence may also be admissible where it is part of the res gestae of the crime charged. Pickens v. State, 2001 OK CR 3, ¶ 20, 19 P.3d 866, 876; Neill v. State, 1994 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 35-36, 896 P.2d 537, 550-51. The res gestae exception differs from the other listed exceptions to the evidence rule; in the other exceptions, the other offense is intentionally proven, while in the res gestae exception, the other offense incidentally emerges. Neill, id. The final decision on the admissibility of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a clear showing of abuse and resulting prejudice, this Court will not disturb the trial court's ruling. Pickens, 2001 OK CR 3, ¶ 21, 19 P.3d at 876.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. BAIRD v. STATE · BAIRD v. STATE“only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. FUSTON v. STATE · BRAMLETT v. STATE
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.