Pitts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1988
15 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 70 Okla. Crim. 443 - Sweet v. State · Hudson v. State · 18 Okla. Crim. 257 - Winfield v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 226 - Jackson v. State · 91 Okla. Crim. 47 - Akins 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has long been the rule that defense counsel has the responsibility to request, and such request must be made of the court reporter at each trial, when he desires to have the closing argument reported. It is defense counsel’s sole responsibility to preserve and protect his own record, and that responsibility cannot be shifted to one not a participant in our adversary system of jurisprudence.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Carwile v. State · Akins v. State““[8, 9] It is well settled that counsel for defense must object to the alleged improper statements by the “prosecutor at the time they are made, and move the court to exclude them from the consideration of the jury; and to make a proper record so that this Court may determine from an examination of the record, whether the alleged improper remarks were actually made, and if so, whether or not they were invited or provoked by opposing counsel’s remarks. See: Sweet v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 443 , 107 P.2d 817 ; and Bruster v. State, 40 Okl.Cr. 25 , 266 P.2d 486 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Carwile v. State · Stucker v. State““This Court has held numerous times that it is within the discretion of the trial court whether or not, to permit a continuance on defendant’s motion. This is especially true when this motion is offered on the date set for trial. See: Winfield v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 257 , 191 P. 609 ; Jackson v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 226 , 114 P.2d 953 (1941). It is never required that the defendant produce any witnesses at all. That decision is made by the defendant and his legal counsel alone. In this case, the testimony of Wilma Jones would have been only cumulative to that of the witnesses offered; and this Court has repeatedly held that it is not error to refuse a continuance when the evidence sought to be admitted would be merely cumulative. See citations above.” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dukes 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.