Flores v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Art. 38.30. Interpreter (a) When a motion for appointment of an interpreter is filed by any party or on motion of the court, in any criminal proceeding, it is determined that a person charged or a witness does not understand and speak the English language, an interpreter must be sworn to interpret for the person charged or the witness.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peralta v. State · Francisco J. Castrejon v. State

2. “The interpreter’s rendition of the Appellant’s statement created the only perma nent record of what was said. It is as if the non-English language was never spoken before the jury and the interpreter stands in place of the witness. There is in fact no requirement or means available at trial to preserve the original foreign language spoken in court. It is the translation presented by the interpreter that creates the record and that ultimately serves as the basis for any potential appeal. In this case all the jurors should have been focused on the written translation and not on the Spanish audio.”

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

3. “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re State