Cooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 39 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law is clear on this point. Title 22 O.S.1981, §§ 622, 655 provide that if two or more defendants are tried jointly, they shall join in their challenges. Driver v. State, 490 P.2d 1109 (Okl.Cr.1971). Section 655 also provides “that when two or more defendants have inconsistent defenses, they shall be granted separate chllenges.... ” the appellant asserts that since this was a capital case, he should have received nine preemptory challenges, but we do not agree. The appellant relies on Murray v. State, 528 P.2d 739 (Okl.Cr.1974), which held that where the defenses of both defendants were mutually antagonistic pitting the defendants against one another, and where there was a limitation on preemptory challenges, denial of severance was an abuse of discretion. As discussed above, the defenses in this case were not antagonistic, and therefore were not within the Murray Rule. This assignment of error is without merit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Funkhouser v. State

2. “This Court has held many times that the decision to grant or deny a severance is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. This Court has also recognized that it is in the interest of both justice and economy to jointly charge and try those who have allegedly participated in the same criminal act, and we have urged trial courts to do so whenever possible. Faubion v. State, 569 P.2d 1022 (Okl.Cr.1977); Dodson v. State, 562 P.2d 916 (Okl.Cr.1977) (Brett, J., specially concurring); See also Menefee v. State, [ 640 P.2d 1381 (Okl.Cr.1983) ], supra, and 22 O.S.1971, § 438. Absent an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the appellant, the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal. Chance v. State, 539 P.2d 412 (Okl.Cr.1975). See Lemmon v. State, 538 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.1975) and Haynes v. State, 532 P.2d 1390 (Okl.Cr.1975).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Funkhouser v. State

3. “The test for determining the lawfulness of an arrest has been stated several times by this Court. It is, whether at the moment the arrest was made, facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, were sufficient to warrant a prudent man to believe the arrestee had committed, or was committing, a crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Parker v. State