Stout v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Walker v. State (1986), State v. Aten (1996)
2 federal appellate · 44 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 Edwards v. Arizona · Doyle v. Ohio · Opper v. United States · Smith v. United States · Anderson v. Charles
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“****** 2. The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; 3. The person committed the murder for remuneration * * *; 4. The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; 5. The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution; 6. The murder was committed by a person while serving a sentence of imprisonment on conviction of a felony; 8. The victim of the murder was a peace officer. ******”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'I 174 In Stout, this Court stated, The prosecutor also attacked the credibility of defense counsel, a practice of which this Court does not approve.... The remarks were made in response to defense counsel's opening statement in which he told the jury he would prove that three people killed the Gandys and that Billy Stout was not one of them, that Billy was physically unable to commit the crime or to drive the car to Chickasha. Although the prosecutor could have-and should have-pointed out defense counsel's failure to offer such proof without directly attacking defense counsel's credibility, we do not find that the remarks prejudiced the defendant. ... Furthermore, the trial court admonished the jury that these totally improper remarks were not evidence and should not be considered. Admonishing the jury usually cures error, if any, unless the error appears to have determined the verdict.... The evidence against appellant was conclusive albeit cireumstantial. Any error was cured by the admonition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If a police officer arrests a person without a warrant, the arrest is not unlawful if the officer, upon his own knowledge or upon facts communicated to him by others , has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.