Jefferson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Thornton v. State (2014), Reynolds v. State (2016)
63 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York · Francis v. Franklin
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have stated many times that the trial court is given broad discretion to control counsel in closing arguments, and we do not interfere with that discretion absent a manifest abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Tryon [v. State, 371 Ark. 25 , 263 S.W.3d 475 (2007)]; Leaks v. State, 339 Ark. 348 , 5 S.W.3d 448 (1999); Lee v. State, 326 Ark. 529 , 932 S.W.2d 756 (1996). “Although it is not good practice for counsel to inject them personal beliefs into the closing arguments, mere expressions of opinion by counsel in closing argument are not reversible error so long as they do not purposely arouse passion and prejudice.” Neff v. State, 287 Ark. 88, 94 , 696 S.W.2d 736, 740 (1985). Furthermore, the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the potential for prejudice based on the prosecutor’s remarks. Tryon, supra; Leaks, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Causation may be found when the result would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant operating either alone or concurrently with another cause unless: (1) The concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result; and (2) The conduct of the defendant was clearly insufficient to produce the result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Claggett v. State
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.