Orona v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Madden v. State (1990), Cockrell v. State (1996)
80 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 Harris v. State · Rose v. State · Boyde v. State · Garrett v. State · Gomez 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In summary, a reviewing court in applying the harmless error rule should not focus upon the propriety of the outcome of the trial. Instead, an appellate court should be concerned with the integrity of the process leading to the conviction [or punishment]. Consequently, the court should [1] examine the source of the error, [2] the nature of the error, [3] whether or to what extent it was emphasized by the State, and [4] its probable collateral implications. Further, the court should consider [5] how much weight a juror would probably place upon the error. In addition, the court must also determine [6] whether declaring the error harmless would encourage the State to repeat it with impunity. In summary, the reviewing court should focus not on weight of the other evidence of guilt [or punishment], but rather on whether error at issue might possibly have prejudiced the jurors’ decision-making; it should ask not whether the jury reached the correct result, but rather whether the jurors were able properly to apply law to facts in order to reach a verdict.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“THE STATE: Ladies and gentlemen, it is not my job to wish the kind of case that I put on [for] you. I bring you the evidence that has been produced that indicates this man’s guilt. What I wish in this case is immaterial. May be material to this man [indicating toward the defendant]. The only thing that I wish is that justice is done in this case. I have taken a very sacred oath, in my opinion, to see that justice is done in every case I prosecute. It is your duty ... to see that justice is done in this case. [Defense counsel] has no such oath, and what he wishes is that you turn a guilty man free. That’s what he wishes, and he can wish that because he doesn’t have the obligation to see that justice is done in this case. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I want to object. That’s striking at the defendant over the shoulders of his attorney. THE COURT: Overruled. DEFENSE COUNSEL: I’d ask the Court to instruct the jury that I have just as sacred an oath to see that justice is done. THE COURT: You do take an oath, but it does not have the wording that he’s talking about, Counsel. THE STATE: His oath is to represent the interest of his client to his utmost within the bounds of the law. He’s done that. But, see, it's not important to seek truth and justice under his oath. It is mine. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I must object. That’s a mischaracterization of my oath. My oath does not say that I’m not supposed to be looking for truth and justice. THE COURT: Overruled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. State“[i]f the State had sought to advance its argument after the objection, then the opposite result might be necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman 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.