Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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. ““Defendant’s second complaint contends that the handwriting specimens obtained before he was provided legal counsel violated his rights under Article 2, § 21, of the Oklahoma Constitution, to Wit: ‘No person shall be compelled to give evidence which will tend to incriminate him, * * “In the instant case, we reject the idea of compulsion claimed by defendant. We believe the Attorney General is correct when he states in his brief, Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , provides that it is not required that counsel be present when handwriting exemplars are taken from an accused; nor does the taking of such exemplars violate the constitutional rights of the defendant. We believe this is especially true in the instant case. We also agree with the Attorney General’s statement, that handwriting exemplars are comparable to fingerprints, in that such is an identifying physical characteristic. See Gilbert v. California, supra. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Buzzard v. State · Stott v. State