10 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro 2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro | 2 | 3 |
Gore v. Stategreen2 sentences2017"Whether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at issue was admissible." Id. , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 10, 230 P.3d at 895. 2017"Whether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at issue was admissible." Id. , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 10 , 230 P.3d at 895 . | 1 | 2 |
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017"Whether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at issue was admissible." Id. , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 10, 230 P.3d at 895. 2017"Whether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at issue was admissible." Id. , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 10, 230 P.3d at 895. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro 2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro | 1 | 1 |
Darks v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Darks v. State, 954 P.2d 152, 168 (Okl.Cr.1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pavatt v. State
green
2 sentences2018However, "[w]hether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at his disposal was admissible." Id. , 2007 OK CR 19 , ¶ 45, 159 P.3d at 287 . ¶53 Assuming arguendo the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing this particular evidence, Appellant fails to show plain error. 2018However, "[w]hether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at his disposal was admissible." Id. , 2007 OK CR 19 , ¶ 45, 159 P.3d at 287 . ¶53 Assuming arguendo the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing this particular evidence, Appellant fails to show plain error. | 3 | 2011–2018 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2018However, "[w]hether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at his disposal was admissible." Id. , 2007 OK CR 19 , ¶ 45, 159 P.3d at 287 . ¶53 Assuming arguendo the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing this particular evidence, Appellant fails to show plain error. 2018However, "[w]hether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at his disposal was admissible." Id. , 2007 OK CR 19, ¶ 45 , 159 P.3d at 287 . ¶53 Assuming arguendo the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing this particular evidence, Appellant fails to show plain error. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
HARRIS v. STATE
green
2 sentences2025Bertrand has not shown "(1) that the court prevented him from obtaining or presenting evidence; (2) that the court's action was arbitrary or disproportionate to any legitimate evidentiary or procedural purpose; and (3) that the excluded evidence 'would have been relevant and material, and . . . vital to the defense.'" Harris v. State , 2019 OK CR 22 450 P.3d 933 Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 16 (1967)). 2025Bertrand has not shown "(1) that the court prevented him from obtaining or presenting evidence; (2) that the court's action was arbitrary or disproportionate to any legitimate evidentiary or procedural purpose; and (3) that the excluded evidence 'would have been relevant and material, and . . . vital to the defense.'" Harris v. State , 2019 OK CR 22 450 P.3d 933 Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 16 (1967)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Taylor v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro 2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13 , 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jackson v. State
green
2 sentences2010Jackson v. State, 2006 OK CR 45, ¶ 48 , 146 P.3d 1149, 1165 . ¶ 10 Whether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at issue was admissible. 2010Jackson v. State, 2006 OK CR 45, ¶ 48 , 146 P.3d 1149, 1165 . ¶ 10 Whether Appellant was denied the right to present a defense ultimately turns on whether the evidence at issue was admissible. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.