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 2009–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harmon v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it 2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it | 3 | 4 |
Uttecht v. Browngreen2 sentences2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it 2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it | 3 | 3 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it 2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it | 3 | 3 |
Eizember v. Trammellgreen2 sentences2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it 2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it | 3 | 3 |
Scrivener v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it 2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it | 2 | 2 |
Temple v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it 2025See Scrivener v State, 1938 OK CR 9 75 P.2d 1154 Temple v State, 1918 OK CR 152 175 P. 733 Nolen, this court made it clear that, this Court looks to the entirety of each potential juror's voir dire and gives deference to the ruling of the trial court because, "the trial judge is in a position to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that cannot be observed from a transcript." Johnson , 2012 OK CR 5 Harmon v. State, 2011 OK CR 6 248 P.3d 918 See also Uttecht v. Brown , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007) ("Deference to the trial court is appropriate because it | 2 | 2 |
Grant v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See also Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009)(deference to the trial court is appropriate because it is able to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that do not transfer well, if at all, to the transcript page). ¶ 19 The Witt standard requires only that each juror be willing to consider each of the three statutory punishments: the death penalty, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. 2011See also Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009)(deference to the trial court is appropriate because it is able to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that do not transfer well, if at all, to the transcript page). ¶ 19 The Witt standard requires only that each juror be willing to consider each of the three statutory punishments: the death penalty, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. | 1 | 3 |
Union Guano Company v. Garrisongreen2 sentences2011See also Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009)(deference to the trial court is appropriate because it is able to personally observe the panelists, and take into account a number of non-verbal factors that do not transfer well, if at all, to the transcript page). ¶ 19 The Witt standard requires only that each juror be willing to consider each of the three statutory punishments: the death penalty, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. 2011Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 . "[Dleference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the jurors." id., 469 U.S. at 426 , 105 S.Ct. at 853 ; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1041 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ("Deference [on jury-selection issues] is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court to make credibility determinations."); Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, - U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009) (defe | 1 | 2 |
Miller-El v. Cockrellgreen2 sentences2011Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 . "[Dleference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the jurors." id., 469 U.S. at 426 , 105 S.Ct. at 853 ; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1041 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ("Deference [on jury-selection issues] is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court to make credibility determinations."); Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, - U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009) (defe 2011Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 . "[Dleference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the jurors." id., 469 U.S. at 426 , 105 S.Ct. at 853 ; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1041 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ("Deference [on jury-selection issues] is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court to make credibility determinations."); Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, - U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009) (defe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
NOLEN v. STATE
green
2 sentences2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. 2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
PEREZ v. STATE
green
2 sentences2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. 2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
PEREZ v. STATE
green
2 sentences2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. 2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
NELOMS v. State
green
2 sentences2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. 2025Nolen, 2021 OK CR 5 Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 525 P.3d 46 Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7 274 P.3d 161 ¶33 Reece's proposition concerns his complaint that prospective jurors N.P., R.S., and R.G. should have been excused for cause by the trial court. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Hogan v. State
green
2 sentences2011Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 17 , 139 P.3d 907, 918 . 2011Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 17 , 139 P.3d 907, 918 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences2011Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 . "[Dleference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the jurors." id., 469 U.S. at 426 , 105 S.Ct. at 853 ; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1041 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ("Deference [on jury-selection issues] is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court to make credibility determinations."); Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, - U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009) (defe 2011Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 . "[Dleference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the jurors." id., 469 U.S. at 426 , 105 S.Ct. at 853 ; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1041 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ("Deference [on jury-selection issues] is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court to make credibility determinations."); Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11, ¶ 17 , 205 P.3d 1, 11 , cert. denied, - U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 404 , 175 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009) (defe | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2009Harris v. State, 2004 OK CR 1, ¶ 11 , 84 P.3d 731, 741 . 2009Harris v. State, 2004 OK CR 1, ¶ 11 , 84 P.3d 731, 741 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.