Watkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Purkett v. Elem · Miller-El v. Dretke
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen illegitimate grounds like race are in issue, a prosecutor simply has got to state his reasons as best he can and stand or fall on the plausibility of the reasons he gives. A Batson challenge does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis. If the stated reason does not hold up, its pretextual significance does not fade because a trial judge, or an appeals court, can imagine a reason that might not have been shown up as false.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“need not limit itself to arguments or considerations that the parties specifically called to the trial court's attention so long as those arguments or considerations are manifestly grounded in the appellate record.” Watkins, 245 S.W.3d at 448 . Allowing appellant to present a more comprehensive comparative analysis in support of his Batson claim on appeal is merely to allow him”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“• whether the party eliminated a far greater proportion of African-American veniremembers than non-African-American veniremembers; • whether the party’s stated reasons for striking the African-American veniremembers would apply equally to non-African-American venire-members that the party did not strike; • whether the party used a jury shuffle in a manner that appeared racially discriminatory; • whether the party disproportionately singled out African-American venire-members for voir-dire questioning in a way designed to elicit grounds for peremptory challenges; and • whether the party employed a formal policy to exclude minorities from jury service at the time of trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Greer v. State
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.