Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Coble v. State (2010), Walters v. State (2007)
61 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 Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Francis v. Franklin · Almanza 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he judge is a neutral arbiter between the advocates; he is the instructor in the law to the jury, but he is not involved in the fray. The advocates have the task of producing the evidence, arguing its significance, and pointing out the logical inferences that flow from that evidence. The jurors, meanwhile, are primarily passive listeners who are supposed to remain open-minded until the evidence is completed and the judge has given them the black-letter law in his written charge. `The adversary theory... maintains that the devotion of the participants, judge, juror and advocate, each to a single function, leads to the fairest and most efficient resolution of the dispute.'5 "5 See Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). This strict division of labor has been explained as necessary because `maintaining juror impartiality [is] fundamental to adversarial integrity' .... Id. at 887 ."”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The jmy, in all cases, is the exclusive judge of the facts proved, and of the weight to be given to the testimony, except where it is provided by law that proof of any particular fact is to be taken as either conclusive or presumptive proof of the existence of another fact, or where the law directs that a certain degree of weight is to be attached to a certain species of evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he judge shall, before the argument begins, deliver to the jury ... a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case; not expressing any opinion as to the weight of the evidence, not summing up the testimony, discussing the facts or using any argument in his charge calculated to arouse the sympathy or excite the passions of the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.