McCrary v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““You are further instructed that the laws of the State of Oklahoma do not prohibit the sale of such material meeting the following standards: 1. Pursuant to medical prescription or for use in any recognized school of medicine or veterinary science for education purpose. 2. If the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would not find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to one’s prurient interest. A. In applying contemporary community standards the material’s impact on an average person must be determined, not the impact on a particularly susceptible or sensitive person, or, indeed, a totally insensitive one. B. Prurient is defined by Funk & Wagnalls dictionary as: 1. Impure in thought and desire; lewd. 2. Having lustful cravings or desires. 3. Longing, desirous. 3. If the depiction, otherwise prohibited by the State Law, of sexual conduct, is not so depicted in a patently offensive way. 4. If the material, taken as a whole, is of literary, political, artistic or scientific value. If, after considering all of the evidence, whether introduced by the State or by the defendant, you find that the sale of State’s Exhibit No. 1 is not prohibited by reason of falling within one of the above categories, or if you have a reasonable doubt in this regard, it is your duty to resolve this case in favor of the defendant and acquit him.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hildahl v. State · Gilbert v. State

2. “(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, 408 U.S. [229], at 230, 92 S.Ct. [2245] at 2246 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 312 (1972) ], quoting Roth v. United States, supra, 354 U.S. [476], at 489, 77 S.Ct. [1304], at 1311 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957)]; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cherokee News & Arcade, Inc. v. State · Glenn v. State

3. “(a) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, that sexual conduct specifically defined above; and (c) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cherokee News & Arcade, Inc. v. State · Hess v. State