Pugh v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the Instructions of the Court, here, something, I think, needs to be pointed out, very carefully. And by the way, Counsel asked you, ‘has anybody here said that they saw my client,’ you know, ‘help in this murder?’ Huh uh. No. We didn’t — we came to you with the evidence we had. We didn’t fabricate evidence. “Now, but you know, has there been anybody here who has said that Albert didn’t say these things ? “BY MR. SELLERS: If your Honor please— “BY MR. FALLIS: (Interrupting) Ladies and gentlemen— * “BY MR. SELLERS: (Interrupting) Just a minute. May we approach the bench ? “BY THE COURT: Yes, sir. “(And thereupon, the Reporter joined counsel at the bench, where the following record was made, out of the hearing of the jury, to-wit:) “BY MR. MOORE: If your Honor please, we object to the last argument of counsel. There has been definite and dual contradictions, and denials, by witnesses called by by the defendant, as to what Mr. McDonald said in this case. And the comment just made by counsel, is a direct reference, to this jury, that the defendant did not testify in his own behalf, and we move for a mistrial. “BY THE COURT: It will be overruled, and exceptions allowed. . . .” (Tr. 1697-1698)”

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

2. ““The Oklahoma statute prohibiting comment on failure of defendant to testify is comprehensive in the extreme and the Court of Criminal Appeals will not enlarge nor extend its provisions so as to prevent a fair discussion of the evidence, even though the defendant did not testify and called no witnesses in her behalf. This statute will not be deemed to go to the extent of prohibiting comment upon inferences reasonably to be drawn from a failure to controvert the State’s evidence by proper proof other than that which might be given by the defendant personally.””

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