Brooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Brooks , the court of appeals stated: If there is a reasonable likelihood that the error materially affected the jury’s deliberations, then the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 . The fact that the legally admitted evidence is sufficient to support the verdict does not demonstrate the error was harmless. Id. (quoting Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 258-59 , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284). However, the error may be harmless when the lawfully admitted evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming. See Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 269-71 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133, 151 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Brooks, 132 S.W.3d at 708 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. State

2. “The threshold question imposed by Crawford is whether the proffered out-of-court statement is “testimonial” in nature. Although the Court purposefully avoids drawing a comprehensive definition of the term, it identifies certain categories of out-of-court statements that definitely fall under the heading of testimonial statements. These categories include prior sworn testimony from a preliminary hearing, a grand jury, proceeding, or an earlier trial. They also include police interrogations. According to Crawford , these types of statements bear the “closest kinship” to the abuses at which the Confrontation Clause was directed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wall v. State

3. “admitting statements deemed reliable by a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation. To be sure, the Clause’s ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross examination. The Clause thus reflects a judgment, not only about the desirability of reliable evidence (a point on which there could be little dissent), but about how reliability can best be determined.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wall v. State