State v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2014
11 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 Batson v. Kentucky · State v. Antwine · State v. Mallett · United States v. Engleman · State v. Cannady
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Notwithstanding supreme court rule 24.06, whenever two or more defendants are jointly charged in an indictment or information, the court shall order both or all defendants tried together. In the event two or more defendants are charged in separate indictments or infor-mations with offenses, where both the defendants and the offenses could have been joined in the same information or indictment, upon motion of one or more defendants or on motion of the state, the court may order the indictments or infor-mations or both to be tried together. 2. If, upon written motion of the defendant, the court finds that the probability for prejudice exists in a joint trial, the court shall order the severance of defendants for trial. The court shall find that the probability for prejudice exists if: (1) At least one but not all of the defendants jointly charged is, if convicted, subject to jury assessment of punishment; the defendant or defendants subject to jury assessment of punishment shall have the burden of showing the probability of prejudice if tried jointly; (2) There is, or may reasonably be expected to be, material and substantial evidence admissible against less than all of the joint defendants; (3) There exists an out of court statement of a codefendant which makes reference to another of the joint defendants, but is not admissible against that defendant, and if the statement cannot be properly limited so as to eliminate reference to the complaining defendant; (4) Severance of ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Childers“(b) If two or more defendants are charged in an indictment or information, all defendants shall be tried together unless the court orders a defendant to be tried separately. A defendant shall be ordered to be tried separately only if the defendant files a written motion requesting a separate trial and the court finds a probability of prejudice exists or; (1) The defendant is subject to assessment of punishment by the jury and the defendant shows a probability of prejudice would result from this fact if he is not tried separately;' or (2) There is, or may reasonably be expected to be, material and substantial evidence not admissible against the defendant that would be admissible against other defendants if a separate trial is not ordered; or (3) There is an out-of-court statement that is not admissible against the defendant that would be admissible against other defendants if a separate trial is not ordered unless the court finds the out-of-court statement can be limited by eliminating any reference to the defendant; or (4) A separate trial is necessary to a fair determination of whether the defendant is guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Childers
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.