Templer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2004
2 federal appellate · 14 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 Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Thompson v. State · Bell v. State · Wilson 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Fourthly, the defendant complains of error in trial court by a refusal to allow the defense counsel to use the term ‘moral certainty’ as synonymous with ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.... The defendant goes on ... to urge that the court committed error in refusing to allow the defendant an instruction on the terms ‘moral certainty’ and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Defendant cites as his only authority ... the case of Gray v. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 208 , 38 P.2d 967 (1934), wherein the Court held that while the terms ‘moral certainty’ and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ are synonymous in some dictionaries, the difficulty is that the words ‘moral certainty’ add nothing to the words ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ as one may require explanation as much as the other. We also observe that Gray, supra, as well as a number of more recent cases, holds that it is not necessary for the trial court to define what is meant by a ‘reasonable doubt,’ and trial courts have been repeatedly admonished against giving any instruction attempting to define the term ‘reasonable doubt.’ In more recent years, trial courts have been severely criticized by this Court for attempting to define the term ‘reasonable doubt.’ See Bell v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 167 (1963); and, it has even been held reversible error to so define this difficulty-of-definition term. Wilson v. State, Okl. Cr., 403 P.2d 262 (1965); Lee v. State, Okl.Cr., 430 P.2d 858 (1967). We reiterate the phrase ‘reasonable doubt’ is self-explanatory, and ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cooper v. State“... we should also like to refer the defendant to Bell v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 167 (1962), wherein we stated: `It has never been the practice of this court to permit the inclusion of arguments in former cases by reference, and we do not propose to recognize such herein. There is no end to the mischief and research that would be imposed on appellate courts if this practice were permitted.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lott v. State
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.