Laudermilk v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In dealing with a similar proposition in Cox v. State, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 545 , this Court stated: ‘In the later case of Allen v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 395 , 164 P. 1002, 1004 , L.R. A.1917F, 210, this court affirmed a conviction for murder and distinguished the case of Bilton v. Territory [ 1 Okl.Cr. 566 , 99 P. 163 ]'by laying down two tests for determining whether the partaking of intoxicating liquors was in itself sufficient to vitiate a verdict. First, whether the intoxicant was drunk while the jury was deliberating upon the verdict. Second, whether the intoxicant incapacitated any juror so as to prevent the proper performance of his duties. In the Bil-ton case the intoxicating liquor was drunk throughout the progress of the trial and while the jury was deliberating upon the verdict. In the Allen case only two members of the jury partook of whiskey mixed with quinine as a medicine during a recess in the trial and the court stated: “It is not shown that the effect of such mixture deadened the sensibilities of the jurors to any extent whatever, or rendered either of them incapable for the proper performance of their duties.” ’ “The Court further stated in Cox, supra: ‘We hesitate to make any remark which might be construed as placing the stamp of approval upon the partaking of intoxicating liquor by jurors as we feel such partaking is improper and the bailiff should be careful to see that such is not done, however, we are aware that a great many people in “dry” Oklahoma drink ”

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