Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 OKCR 31 - Dodd v. State

Dodd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
3
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 2006 OK CR 19 - Hogan v. State (2006), Hooks v. Workman (2012)

7 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

220200420102020decided

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 · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “cireumstances surrounding the crime, the manner in which the crime was perpetrated, and the victim's opinion of a recommended sentence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Defendant] was able to present evidence and argument on many of the subjects he lists as alternative-suspect evidence. For example, the jury was made aware that the victims possessed paraphernalia not only for ingesting drugs, but for distributing them as well. Expert testimony showed that some DNA recovered from the bloody hand towel did not match either victim or [Defendant], and that numerous latent fingerprints lifted from the crime scene did not match either the victims or [Defendant.] In addition, [Defendant] presented expert testimony as to the unlikelihood that a lone assailant could have held two victims in submission without restraining them in some manner, and testimony was presented that the manner of killing was reminiscent of gang violence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The prosecutor’s conduct was at times melodramatic, and his sidebar comments about the defendant’s demeanor would have been better reserved for closing argument. The trial in this case was long and sometimes emotional. Counsel for both parties were experienced, prepared, and zealous advocates. That zeal may have overtaken them briefly at times. [Defendant] concedes in his brief that neither side was beyond reproach. We have considered the instances [Defendant] complains of carefully, in light of the entire record, and cannot say that this conduct, alone or in accumulation, affected the outcome of the trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.