green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.2 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Murphy v. Sirmons
(2×)
victim impact testimony may include information about the victim, circumstances surrounding the crime, the manner in which the crime was perpetrated, and the victim's opinion of a recommended sentence.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Murphy v. State
(4×)
victim impact testimony may include information about the victim, cireumstances surrounding the crime, the manner in which the crime was perpetrated, and the victim's opinion of a recommended sentence.
discussed
Cited "see"
Warner v. Workman
(2×)
See Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8 ¶ 23 , 2 P.3d 356, 369 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 665 , 148 L.Ed.2d 567 (2000).
examined
Cited "see"
Warner v. State
(4×)
See Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8 ¶ 23 , 2 P.3d 356, 369 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 665 , 148 L.Ed.2d 567 (2000). ¶ 24 As for Rebecca Price, a twenty-one year employee with the Department of Human Services, Appellant asserts she improperly bolstered and vouched for the credibility of Charvon Warner and Detective Willy Edwards.
examined
Cited "see"
Harrison v. Norton
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Harrison, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 665 , 148 L.Ed.2d 567 (2000) (denying certiorari); id., 531 U.S. 1186 , 121 S.Ct. 1177 , 148 L.Ed.2d 1035 (2001) (denying request for a rehearing).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Larry James Ridgeway
See United States v. Bull, 214 F.3d 1275, 1277-78 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 667 , 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000).
examined
Cited "see"
Guest v. State
(4×)
See Welch v. *290 State, 2000 OK CR 8, ¶ 31 , 2 P.3d 356, 371 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 665 , 148 L.Ed.2d 567 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Franklin E. Hagins v. United States
See United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir.) (holding that, where a written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncements of the sentencing judge, the oral pronouncement at sentencing controls), ce rt. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 666 , 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000). b.
cited
Cited "see"
Black v. State
See Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8, ¶ 48 , 2 P.3d 356, 374 , cert. denied, - U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 665 , 148 L.Ed.2d 567 (2000); Malone v. State, 1994 OK CR 43, ¶ 28 , 876 P.2d 707, 716 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dionas v. State
Compare United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305 , 1311 n. 10 (D.C.Cir.) (courts should “hesitate to connect the length of deliberations with the strength of the government’s case”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 666 , 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000), with United States v. Velarde-Gomez, 269 F.3d 1023, 1036 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (“Longer jury deliberations ‘weigh against a finding of harmless error’ because lengthy deliberations suggest a difficult case.”); United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 126 (1st Cir.2000) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dionas v. State
Compare United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305 , 1311 n. 10 (D.C.Cir.) (courts should “hesitate to connect the length of deliberations with the strength of the government’s case”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 666 , 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000), with United States v. Velarde-Gomez, 269 F.3d 1023, 1036 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (“Longer jury deliberations “weigh against a finding of harmless error’ because lengthy deliberations suggest a *513 difficult case.”); United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 126 (1st Cir.2000) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Browning v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8 , 2 P.3d 356, 374 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 665 , 148 L.Ed.2d 567 ; Alverson, 983 P.2d at 518 . 108 .Browning cites Rojem v. Gibson, 245 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. VanMeter
(2×)
Compare United States v. Kelley, 140 F.3d 596, 604 (5th Cir.) (reviewing for clear error), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 880 , 908, 119 S.Ct. 186 , 247, 142 L.Ed.2d 152, 203 (1998) with United States v. Bennett, 219 F.3d 1117, 1121 (5th Cir.) (reviewing for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 1153, 121 S.Ct. 666 , 1099, 148 L.Ed.2d 568 , 971 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ramon Velarde-Gomez
Longer jury deliberations “weigh against a finding of harmless error [because l]engthy deliberations suggest a difficult case.” United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 126 (1st Cir.2000); Dallago v. United States, 427 F.2d 546, 559 (D.C.Cir.1969) (“The jury deliberated for five days, and one would expect that if the evidence of guilt was overwhelming the jury would have succumbed much sooner.”) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305, 1313 (D.C.Cir.) (Silberman, J., dissenting) (“[W]e are willing to take into consideration the length of jury deliberat…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Glossip v. State
(4×)
The majority of the victim impact statement was outside the scope of permissible victim impact evidence, was unduly prejudicial and was not probative of "those unique characteristics which define the individual who has died, the contemporaneous and prospective circumstances surrounding that death, and how those circumstances have financially, emotionally, psychologically, and physically impacted on members of the victim's immediate family." Id., 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 75 , 909 P.2d at 828 ; see also Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8, ¶ 42 , 2 P.3d 356, 373 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056 , 121 S.Ct. 665 …
Welch
v.
Oklahoma
v.
Oklahoma
No. 00-6648.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 2000.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of O… (4) · E.D. Oklahoma (2)
Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.