Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1997
8 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 Sandefur v. State · Kovash v. State · Williams v. United States · Towning v. State · Jones 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court was advised that the purpose was to ‘counsel with the prosecutor.’ [Tr. 11] In Baker v. State, Okl.Cr., 306 P.2d 344 (1957), we stated m paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Syllabus: ‘1. The exclusion of witnesses for the state, at defendant’s request, is not an absolute right in all cases, but rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and this includes the power to except one or more witnesses from the operation of the rule. ‘2. It is proper practice to permit the prosecuting witness, or some officer active in the prosecution of the case, to remain in the courtroom to advise the prosecuting attorney as to the facts, interest, and character of witnesses, etc., though the state’s witnesses generally are excluded.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDade 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.