Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In this jurisdiction it is customarily the procedure in bringing a probationer before the court to arraign the probationer on the application to revoke before the judge who placed probationer on such status. It would be this Court’s interpretation of Gagnon, supra, that to fully comply with the detailed procedure outlined in that decision, the trial court would be required on the arraignment of the application, in the presence of probationer, to receive evidence from a witness which establishes the probable cause that probationer has violated the terms of his probation. Consequently, this Court finds that it is necessary that upon arraigning the probationer upon the application that evidence be given which establishes probable cause probationer has violated the terms of his probationary status and he he afforded the opportunity to confront any accusatory evidence at this stage. This preliminary hearing is to be afforded probationer in addition to the revocation hearing ordinarily conducted in compliance with § 991b. However, at the preliminary hearing stage the only issue in question is whether there is probable cause to hold probationer for a final adjudication of revocation of probation. “It is this Court’s opinion that § 991b substantially complies with the rule set forth in Gagnon , in other respects. We therefore determine that the final adjudication of a revocation of probation in compliance with § 991b following a proper preliminary hearing had at the time probationer”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections v. Means

2. “[I]f probationer is not acquitted by the trier of facts upon the issue of whether an offense was committed and he committed it, there can be no application of the rule of estoppel to a subsequent revocation proceeding conducted on the same evidence. Consequently, we find estoppel is not an issue in this case.”

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

3. “person whose suspended sentence is being considered for revocation at the hearing shall have the right ... to be confronted by the witnesses against the defendant.”

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