Cockrum v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably King v. State (1997), McDuff v. State (1997)
67 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 Irvin v. Dowd · Wainwright v. Witt · Murphy v. Florida · Sharp v. State · Mitchell v. Texas
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because this Court applies the abuse of discretion standard ... for deciding appeals concerning the manner of voir dire, it is essential that the record present this Court with a question which the trial judge has not allowed to be answered. If counsel refrains ... from asking a question, the judge is denied the opportunity to make a ruling. Thus, we are unable to review the correctness of a ruling which was never made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nunfio v. State · Godine v. State“I have read the affidavits in support of Defendant’s Motion for Change of Venue in this cause. The affiants of said affidavits are not credible as they are prejudiced to said Defendant and their means of knowledge are not sufficient to support and justify the statements contained therein.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“PROSECUTOR: ... [Wjould you be able to, having found someone guilty of that offense, if the evidence called for it, answer these questions, the Special Issue No. 1 and Special Issue No. 2 in the negative? If that’s what the evidence showed you? FAULKNER: In th< PROSECUTOR: No, would you be able to answer them no if that’s what the facts showed you? FAULKNER: Yes, sir. PROSECUTOR: In other words, its the burden on the State to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that you should answer these questions yes before you should answer them yes? FAULKNER: Yes, I understand that, yes. PROSECUTOR: If the State doesn’t meet that burden, would you be able to answer the question no? FAULKNER: Yes, sir. PROSECUTOR: The fact that a death sentence is out there or a life sentence, depending on the responses, wouldn’t influence your answer to those questions? FAULKNER: Yes, sir. PROSECUTOR: You’re going to decide it on the facts of the evidence presented? FAULKNER: That is correct. 5⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ PROSECUTOR: It’s for the State to prove that the defendant is guilty, not for him to prove he’s not guilty. You understand and agree with that principle? FAULKNER: Yes, sir, I sure do. ⅝ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ PROSECUTOR: Likewise, on [Special Issue] 2, if I convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, you will answer yes? FAULKNER: Yes, sir. PROSECUTOR: You are not going to make me prove to you beyond any doubt that the answer should be yes? FAULKNER: No, sir.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes 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.