135 Tex. Crim. 170 - Meeks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We do not understand that it was necessary for appellant to show the court that the proposed testimony was newly discovered. In Steadham v. State [ 119 Tex.Cr.R. 475 , 43 S.W.2d 944 ], it is shown that the testimony of the witnesses the appellant was requesting the opportunity to present was purely impeaching. In the course of the opinion Judge Hawkins said: ‘It is well understood that ordinarily a case will not be continued or postponed, or a new trial granted, for purely impeaching testimony. Appellant was seeking none of these. . . . His only request was that he be given until 9 o’clock next morning to produce the witnesses named. The request seems not unreasonable.” (Emphasis added.) 117 S.W.2d at pp. 456-457.”

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

2. ““[I]t was not within the discretion of the Court to exclude the testimony of witnesses present before the Court read his charge to the jury and prior to the time the argument began.””

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