Bernard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2021
5 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 Chapman v. State of California · 91 Okla. Crim. 326 - Fry v. State · Lovell v. State · 90 Okla. Crim. 435 - Hilyard v. State · Igo 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . .It has several times been held by this Court that where a person might be a material witness in defendant’s behalf, and he is not placed upon the stand by the accused, nor his absence accounted for, failure to produce him as a witness is a legitimate matter for comment in the argument of the State. See, Hilyard v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 435 , 214 P.2d 953 (1950).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barnhart 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.