Goodwin v. Page’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 11 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) It is fundamental in Oklahoma that jurisdiction of a Court over the person of one physically before the Court upon criminal charges is not impaired by the manner in which accused is brought before it, and the fact that arrest was unlawful or removal proceedings illegal would not affect such jurisdiction. (2) It is true that the delay in taking the accused before the Magistrate may constitute an important element, when considered with other elements, in the denial of Constitutional and Statutory due process, however, there was nothing before it (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma) to indicate a prejudicial delay in taking petitioner before a Magistrate. (3) Considerable adverse pretrial publicity does not ipso facto require a continuance, a change of venue or a new trial. A defendant can be assured a fair and impartial jury in the face of wide-spread adverse publicity through the voir dire examination of the jury. Nor does the fact that jurors have read adverse publicity disqualify prospective jurors if they can act impartially and fairly upon the matters to be submitted to them. However, in the absence of any record of the voir dire examination of the jury, it is impossible for this Court to find that the jury impaneled was not impartial. The burden of establishing the allegations of the Petition is upon the petitioner. (4) Prior to the amendment of 22 O.S.1961, § 15 in 1953, which prohibits trying a defendant in chains and shackles, the law in Oklahoma made it a matte”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 F. Supp. 1205 - Goodwin v. Page

2. “(1) That petitioner was arrested in Pensacola, Florida, on July 20, 1936, and held for Oklahoma officers who removed him from Florida without extradition papers or waiver and returned him to Oklahoma, staying in various jails along the way. (2) That on July 30, 1936, he was given an “automobile arraignment” before a justice of the peace who waived a preliminary hearing for the petitioner. (3) That during all of this time until October 7, 1936, when the Court-appointed attorney visited petitioner at the jail, he had demanded, and was denied assistance of counsel. (4) That there was considerable public excitement and prejudicial publicity about the crime which was the murder of a local peace officer, thus preventing a fair trial. (5) Some of the jurors admitted having read newspaper articles about the crime. (6) He was handcuffed when entering and leaving the Courtroom in front of jurors. (7) He was denied effective assistance of counsel in that he only saw the Court-appointed counsel five days before trial, and then only for a short period of time; that counsel did not subpoena witnesses; that counsel failed to make an opening statement; failed to ask for a continuance or change of venue; placed no evidence before the Court; and did not keep his promise to appeal the conviction. (8) That the Trial Judge did not advise him of his rights to appeal or his right to a Court-appointed attorney to perfect an appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 F. Supp. 1205 - Goodwin v. Page

3. ““Where a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed, the burden is upon the petitioner to sustain the allegations thereof. It is only when the record and the evidence reveal that the judgment and sentence under which petitioner is being held is void will relief be granted by habeas corpus.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nichols v. Page