Mitts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where evidence is urged by defendant on a motion for new trial on the ground the same is newly discovered, it must be established that the same, if existing at the time of trial, could not have been procured before trial by the exercise of due diligence, and failure to do so constitutes a bar to a new trial on such ground. [Title 22, O.S.A. § 952.]””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thompson v. State · Walters v. State

2. ““ * * * The question of insanity at the time of the killing being an affirmative defense, it must have been interposed during the trial. It is too late to assert it now. Grayson v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 266 , 188 P.2d 696; Ex parte Sisson, supra [ 90 Okl.Cr. 47 , 210 P.2d 185 ]. (6) The matter of insanity at the time of the killing has been conclusively foreclosed to this defendant. In People v. Geary, 298 Ill. 236 , 131 N.E. 652 , the rule applicable herein was clearly stated: ‘The sanity of an accused at the time he committed the offense is conclusively determined by the judgment of conviction, and cannot be again raised in a proceeding to have determined the question of his sanity before execution of capital sentence on him, in which case the only questions for trial were whether the defendant had become insane or a lunatic since the entry of the original judgment and whether he is a lunatic or insane at the time of impaneling the jury in that proceeding.’ If the defendant could now assert insanity at the time of the killing in face of this record, the law would result in interminable confusion. Under the foregoing rule, the sanity of the defendant, as far as the merits of the case are concerned, was conclusively determined by the jury’s verdict. Insanity is not a defense that can be reserved for a more propitious time. It must be timely made. * * * ””

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

3. ““The question of insanity at the time of the killing being an affirmative defense, it must have been interposed during the trial.””

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