Oken v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Ball v. State (1997), Jones v. State (2004)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 127 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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Griffin v. California · Fay v. Noia · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"We also agree with Judge Levitz that Oken's counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the comments Oken claims infringed on his right to remain silent. We find that neither of the statements were a comment upon the failure of Petitioner to testify, nor did these statements violate Petitioner’s right to a fair trial. To be sure, comments on a defendant's failure to testify violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229, 1233 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110 (1965); Woodson v. State, 325 Md. 251, 265 , 600 A.2d 420, 426 (1992). Reading the prosecutor’s closing argument in context, however, we do not believe the statements were comments on Petitioner’s right to remain silent. See King v. State, 190 Md. 361, 373-74 , 58 A.2d 663, 668 (1948) (holding that statement that there was no evidence to refute the State’s case was not improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify) [citing Smith v. State, 169 Md. 474 , 182 A. 287 (1936)]; State v. Ward, 338 N.C. 64 , 449 S.E.2d 709, 729 (1994) (holding prosecutor’s remarks were not a comment on defendant’s failure to testify, but fair and proper comments on defendant’s failure to present any evidence), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1134 , 115 S.Ct. 2014 , 131 L.Ed.2d 1013 (1995); see also Eastman v. State, 47 Md.App. 162, 167 , 422 A.2d 41, 43-44 (1980). Nor do we find that the jury would naturally interpret the State’s argument as a comment on Petitioner’s failure to testify. Accor”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“At the outset, we reiterate that, in reviewing the denial of a Brady claim, we are required to accept the factual find ings of the post conviction court unless they are clearly erroneous.”
3 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.