Tilford v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably Hays v. State (1980), Freeman v. State (1994)
3 federal appellate · 26 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 Denney v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 122 - Stanley v. State · Buie v. State · 49 Okla. Crim. 133 - Miller v. State · 33 Okla. Crim. 37 - Cherry 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally, remarks of the prosecuting attorney, including such as might or would otherwise be improper, are not grounds for reversal where they are invited, provoked, or occasioned by accused’s counsel or are in reply to or retaliation for his acts or statements.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Oklahoma statute prohibiting comment on failure of defendant to testify is comprehensive in the extreme and the Court of Criminal Appeals will not enlarge nor extend its provisions so as to prevent a fair discussion of the evidence, even though the defendant did not testify and called no witness in her behalf. This statute will not be deemed to go to the extent of prohibiting comment upon inferences reasonably to be drawn from a failure to controvert the State’s evidence by proper proof other than that which might be given by the defendant personally.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Green v. State · Story v. State““-ORDER FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING- WHEREAS, a Petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed in this Court in the above styled and numbered cause, in which the Petitioner, in his 2nd and 6th propositions raises questions of fact which can only be determined by an evidentiary hearing conducted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, the same being: That the prosecutor withheld evidence favorable to the petitioner; That jurors were excused for cause during the voir dire examination because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty; AND WHEREAS, the State of Oklahoma, by and through its Attorney General, in response to said Petition, requests that this Court issue an order directing that an evidentiary hearing be conducted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, and that the State and the Petitioner be allowed to produce evidence on the issues so raised. IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Presiding Judge of the Seventh Judicial District enter an Order directing that an evi-dentiary,hearing be held on the issues so raised, allowing each side to summons such witnesses and produce such testimony as may be relative to a determination of these issues. The Presiding Judge is further directed to enter an order directing that the transcript of such proceedings be made, together with findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Judge presiding over said proceedings. IT IS THE ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tilford v. Page
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.