71 Okla. Crim. 268 - Ex Parte Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““§ 1162. When an indictment or information is called for trial, or upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment, if a doubt arise as to the sanity of the defendant, the court must order a jury to be impaneled from the jurors summoned and returned for the term, or who may be summoned by direction of the court, to inquire into the fact. “§ 1163. The trial of the cause or the pronouncing the judgment, as the case may be, must be suspended until the question of insanity is determined by the verdict of the jury.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 73 Okla. Crim. 208 - Tuggle v. State · 89 Okla. Crim. 89 - Ex Parte Potts

2. ““The construction of these statutes has been before this court on many occasions, and reference to some of these cases will hereafter be made. The question of whether a writ of habeas corpus may be maintained under the facts as they appear here has also been considered. “In the early case of In re Maas, 10 Okla. 302 , 61 P. 1057, 1058 , the territorial court had under consideration a case similar in many respects to the case at bar. In that case, after reviewing the facts, Judge Burwell said: “ * * If the trial court committed error in pronouncing judgment and sentence upon the defendant, his only remedy is by an appeal to this court. Such matters cannot be reviewed in this action.’ “In the case of Ex parte Yandell, 54 Okla. Cr. 357 , 22 P. 2d 114, 115 , this court had before it the exact question here raised, and in an opinion by Judge Edwards, where the petitioner had been adjudged an insane person by the county court of Seminole county, and a copy of the order was attached to the petition, and it was further alleged that he appeared without counsel and none was appointed for him, after review of the cases relied upon by petitioner in Re Wright, 74 Kan. 406 , 86 P. 460 , 89 P. 678 , and Mabry v. Hoye, 124 Miss. 144 , 87 So. 4 , said: “ ‘It is fundamental that habeas corpus cannot be invoked for the release of one imprisoned under a judgment and commitment by a court of competent jurisdiction unless the judgment and sentence is clearly void. After a judgment of conviction ha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 Okla. Crim. 89 - Ex Parte Potts

3. ““A defendant in a criminal case may waiye any right not inalienable, given him by the statute or by the Constitution, where it can be relinquished without affeccing the rights of others and without detriment to the community at large. “A defendant in a criminal case may waive any right not inalienable, given him by the. statute or by the Constitution, either by express agreement or by conduct, or. by such failure to insist upon it in seasonable time as will operate as an estoppel to his afterwards setting it up against the state. “A narrow, technical rule of construction should never be applied to any provision of the Constitution, but it should be construed in its reason and spirit. “Any person prosecuted in Oklahoma for a capital offense has the constitutional right to have furnished to him, at least two days before the trial begins, a list of the witnesses to be produced against him in chief by the state, and it would be error to force him into trial and allow such witnesses to testify against him whose names have not been so furnished, if he seasonably asserts his rights. But if he fails to object to going to trial on this ground, but announces ready for trial, he cannot after-wards avail himself of this objection, and the constitutional right given him by this provision will be waived.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 80 Okla. Crim. 328 - Jenkins v. State