Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Allridge v. State (1988), Gaddis v. State (1988)
34 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 Alejandro v. State · Todd v. State · Campbell v. State · Talley v. State · Powell 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A prosecuting attorney is permitted in his argument to draw from the facts in evidence all inferences which are reasonable, fair, and legitimate, but he may not use jury argument to get before the jury, either directly or indirectly, evidence which is outside the record. A prosecuting attorney, although free to strike hard blows, is not at liberty to strike foul ones, whether directly or indirectly. Jordan, supra, at 948 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Argument injecting matters not in the record is clearly improper; but argument inviting speculation is even more dangerous because it leaves to the imagination of each juror whether extraneous ‘facts’ may be needed to support a conviction [or assess punishment]. Logical deductions from the evidence do not permit within the rule logical deductions from nonevidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Albiar v. State · Lopez v. State“Such statements may be said to be in the nature of observations requiring no expertise, and therefore incapable of adding to or subtracting from the knowledge of the jurors who had likewise viewed the witnesses.” Id., at 267 . Thus the Court approved a comment by defense counsel that his client "was shaking on the stand and appeared afraid;” but it found reversible error in a rejoinder statement by the prosecutor that accused was “coming down from an addictive drug,” because there was no evidence that he had such an “appearance” and the Court was unable to say that kind of condition "is of such common occurrence that its recognition requires no expertise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Good 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.