Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Irvin v. Dowdgreen2 sentences2023See Irvin , 366 U.S. at 723 ("To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard."). 2023See Irvin , 366 U.S. at 723 ("To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard."). | 4 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sheppard v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences2004See, e.g., id. at 725-28, 81 S.Ct. at 1644-45 (overturning murder conviction where "barrage” of publicity, including reports that defendant had confessed to six murders and offered to plead guilty, created "pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” against defendant, both in community and on jury); Rideau v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 723, 724-26, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1418-20 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (conviction overturned where defendant’s confession had been repeatedly broadcast in community where trial held); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (conviction overturned upon sho 2004See, e.g., id. at 725-28, 81 S.Ct. at 1644-45 (overturning murder conviction where "barrage” of publicity, including reports that defendant had confessed to six murders and offered to plead guilty, created "pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” against defendant, both in community and on jury); Rideau v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 723, 724-26, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1418-20 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (conviction overturned where defendant’s confession had been repeatedly broadcast in community where trial held); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (conviction overturned upon sho | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Estes v. Texas
green
2 sentences2004See, e.g., id. at 725-28, 81 S.Ct. at 1644-45 (overturning murder conviction where "barrage” of publicity, including reports that defendant had confessed to six murders and offered to plead guilty, created "pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” against defendant, both in community and on jury); Rideau v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 723, 724-26, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1418-20 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (conviction overturned where defendant’s confession had been repeatedly broadcast in community where trial held); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (conviction overturned upon sho 2004See, e.g., id. at 725-28, 81 S.Ct. at 1644-45 (overturning murder conviction where "barrage” of publicity, including reports that defendant had confessed to six murders and offered to plead guilty, created "pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” against defendant, both in community and on jury); Rideau v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 723, 724-26, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1418-20 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (conviction overturned where defendant’s confession had been repeatedly broadcast in community where trial held); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (conviction overturned upon sho | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Rideau v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2004See, e.g., id. at 725-28, 81 S.Ct. at 1644-45 (overturning murder conviction where "barrage” of publicity, including reports that defendant had confessed to six murders and offered to plead guilty, created "pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” against defendant, both in community and on jury); Rideau v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 723, 724-26, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1418-20 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (conviction overturned where defendant’s confession had been repeatedly broadcast in community where trial held); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (conviction overturned upon sho 2004See, e.g., id. at 725-28, 81 S.Ct. at 1644-45 (overturning murder conviction where "barrage” of publicity, including reports that defendant had confessed to six murders and offered to plead guilty, created "pattern of deep and bitter prejudice” against defendant, both in community and on jury); Rideau v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 723, 724-26, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1418-20 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (conviction overturned where defendant’s confession had been repeatedly broadcast in community where trial held); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (conviction overturned upon sho | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Townley v. State
green
1 sentence1982It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in Court.’ Supra, at 800, 95 S.Ct. at 2036 ; citing, Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1642.” In Townley v. State, 355 P.2d 420 (Okl.Cr.1960), this Court was presented with a similar situation. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Murphy v. Florida
green
2 sentences1982The bailiff replied, “You can’t consider that.” Juror Knight then allegedly stated, “I know we can’t consider it.” In Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975), the Supreme Court reiterated every defendant is entitled to have ‘a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.’ The Murphy Court stated: “To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of ail accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. 1982The bailiff replied, “You can’t consider that.” Juror Knight then allegedly stated, “I know we can’t consider it.” In Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975), the Supreme Court reiterated every defendant is entitled to have ‘a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.’ The Murphy Court stated: “To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of ail accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Anderson v. State
green
1 sentence1980It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. . . .” (Citations omitted) See also Anderson v. State, Okl.Cr., 551 P.2d 1155 (1976), and Shapard v. State, Okl.Cr., 437 P.2d 565 (1967). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Shapard v. State
green
1 sentence1980It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. . . .” (Citations omitted) See also Anderson v. State, Okl.Cr., 551 P.2d 1155 (1976), and Shapard v. State, Okl.Cr., 437 P.2d 565 (1967). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.