Hawkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

129 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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he question of whether a mistrial should have been granted involves most, if not all, of the same considerations that attend a harm analysis. A mistrial is the trial court’s remedy for improper conduct that is “so prejudicial that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful and futile.” In effect, the trial court conducts an appellate function: determining whether improper conduct is so harmful that the case must be redone. Of course, the harm analysis is conducted in light of the trial court’s curative instruction. Only in extreme circumstances, where the prejudice is incurable, will a mistrial be required.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abbott v. State · Lewis v. State

2. “[I]n cases involving an article 37.07, section 4(a) jury instruction[ 1 ] the jury may base its assessment of punishment in part on consideration of a sentenced defendant’s parole eligibility under the formula contained in the instruction; however, a jury may not base its assessment of punishment on speculation as to when, if ever, the defendant may be released on parole after becoming eligible for parole. Therefore, the jury instruction in article 37.07, section 4(a) that the jury is “not to consider the manner in which the parole law may be applied to this particular defendant” refers to speculation about when, if ever, this particular defendant might be released on parole. It does not refer to the jury’s consideration of a sentenced defendant’s parole eligibility under the formula contained in the instruction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Waters v. State · Taylor v. State

3. “(1) severity of the misconduct (the magnitude of the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks),. (2) measures adopted to cure the misconduct (the efficacy of any cautionary instruction by the judge), and (3) the certainty of conviction absent the misconduct (the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dukes v. State · Ramon v. State