Cherry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably Ford v. State (1993), Randall Book Corp. v. State (1989)
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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Herring v. New York · Harris v. State · Yopps v. State · Covington v. State
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Constitutional right of a defendant to be heard through counsel necessarily includes his right to have his counsel make a proper argument on the evidence and the applicable law in his favor, however simple, clear, unimpeached, and conclusive the evidence may seem, unless he has waived his right to such argument, or unless the argument is not within the issues in the case, and the trial court has no discretion to deny accused such right.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Washington v. State · Ivey v. State“[T]he failure to afford defense counsel the opportunity to argue the sufficiency of the evidence and the applicable law before a verdict is rendered 1) is not reviewable on direct appeal in the absence of timely protest or objection when the record is not sufficient to show that the failure to protest or object was not knowing and purposeful; but 2) is reviewable under post conviction procedures in which the reasons for the absence of protest or objection at trial may be established through a plenary hearing. If the post conviction court determines that the reason for the lack of protest or objection was a matter of trial tactics or was otherwise a considered decision on the part of defense counsel, then the defendant is not entitled to relief. If the post conviction court determines that defense counsel desired to present closing argument prior to verdict but was precluded from doing so by the premature announcement of the verdict by the court, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ivey v. State · Brown v. State“Covington clearly lights the path which may be followed by the defendant in such circumstances. It is the path leading to a plenary hearing under post conviction procedures at which the facts and circumstances surrounding the failure to protest or object can be established and the appropriate determinations made thereon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.