Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 state decisions

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

1. ““The question of the defendant’s right to be informed in the magistrate’s preliminary complaint that he must face the charge as a second and subsequent offender because of a prior conviction or convictions, is a matter of substance, not just form.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mills v. State · Jordon v. State

2. ““Finally, the defendant complains that the county attorney insisted on telling the jury that if his office had not been certain of the defendant’s guilt, the information would not have been filed. Expressions of the county attorney designed to create the impression that the county attorney would not have instituted the prosecution had he not been convinced of the defendant’s guilt should be avoided. Such expressions should not be used to influence the jurors, either to supply the lack of evidence or to make greater the weight of the evidence. Watson v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 590 , 124 P. 1101 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gossett v. State

3. “. . This holding [requiring proof of former conviction at preliminary hearing] will not work undue hardship upon the state in this age of rapid communication . . . rap sheets, and fingerprint identifications readily available to the prosecutor, nor will later acquired knowledge of prior conviction handicap the state. Of course it may cause some delay in the administrative process requiring the filing of a new or amended complaint. . . . ” [Emphasis added]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Louder v. State