Cooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘In applying the rules set forth in Irvin v. Dowd [ 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)], and on the basis of a thorough study of the record of the voir dire examination of the jurors selected to whom the case was ultimately submitted, we are of the opinion that the defendant’s contention that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial by reason that a fair and impartial jury could not be obtained from the inhabitants of Canadian County, is not supported by the record. The jurors who were extensively examined by defense counsel, who was given wide latitude, as to their qualifications all stated that they would base their verdict on the evidence presented and lay aside any impression or opinion which they might have formed as a result of what they had read or heard discussed.’ ””

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

2. ““An analogy can be made between the outburst complained of in the instant case, and the improper testimony in Kitchens v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1300 (1973), where this Court held that ‘the court’s admonition to the jury not to consider the remarks of counsel or a witness usually cures an error unless it is of such a nature after considering the evidence that the error appears to have determined the verdict.’ See also McDaniel v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 675 (1973).””

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

3. ““It is generally held that when a witness proves unresponsive to questions or gives answers substantially contrary to what he is expected to give, or has given in the past, the party calling him has the right to express surprise, and it is then within the discretion of the court to allow cross-examination for the purpose of impeaching the witness. See Morris v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 5 , 247 P. 418 (1926). . . . ””

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