91 Okla. Crim. 437 - Fitzgerald v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1973
4 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 11 Okla. Crim. 203 - Kirk v. State · 7 Okla. Crim. 590 - Watson v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 273 - Orville Little v. State · 76 Okla. Crim. 371 - Hill v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 208 - Abby 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The evidence in the case showed that the county attorney was present at the jail when the defendant was brought in by the highway patrolmen. The county attorney did not testify, but in his closing argument to the jury he made the following statement: “ ‘I will never knowingly permit a man to testify falsely in order to obtain a conviction, while I am County Attorney, and it has been testified here that I was present in the Jail when this man was brought in,’ “When this remark was made, counsel for the defendant objected to it and moved for a mistrial, which was overruled and exception saved to the defendant. “If the county attorney had wanted to testify as a witness he should have been sworn and thus given the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine him. The statement in effect said that the county attorney was present at the jail when defendant was brought in, and that the defendant was guilty of being intoxicated or he would not have filed the charges against him. It has been held that it was improper for the county attorney to state his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused or to make any statement in his closing argument outside of the record for the purpose of creating prejudice against the defendant. In Childs v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 461 , 165 P. 622 this court held: “ ‘A prosecuting attorney should confine his argument before the jury to a fair discussion of the issues in the case, and improper remarks objected to at the time will be considered and construed ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gossett 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.