Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““After reviewing the record of trial we are convinced that Defendant has not met the burden of proof to show that those convictions do not meet the requirements of Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 , 88 S.Ct. [258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 ] paragraph of the syllabus to Tucker v. State, Okl.Cr., 473 P.2d 332 (1970), provides as follows: ‘Where a collateral attack is made upon a judgment and sentence of a previous conviction, the burden of proof is upon defendant to prove he was without assistance of counsel and that he made no waiver to his right to have his attorney present.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. State

2. “"... Defendant complains of remarks made by the District Attorney in his closing argument, and asserts that those remarks constituted reversible error. In several instances complained of by Defendant, no objection was made at the time the remarks were made, and in those which objections were made, the court properly instructed the jury to disregard them. Certain other of the remarks complained of by Defendant were clearly statements made in response to Defense Counsel’s arguments, and in such circumstances they do not constitute reversible error.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vassaur v. State