Gardner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 53 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant may challenge a veniremember for cause when he or she is alleged to be biased or prejudiced against the defendant or the law on which the State or defendant is entitled to rely.... A trial court must excuse the venire member if such a bias or prejudice would substantially impair the juror's ability to carry out his oath and instructions in accordance with the law.”

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

2. “Article 37,071, § 2(d)(1) provides that the court shall, charge the jury that, in deliberating on the future dangerousness and "anti-parties" special issues submitted under Subsection (b), the jury “shall consider all evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence stage and the punishment stage, including evidence of the defendant’s background or character or the circumstances of the offense that militates for or mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty.” Article 37.071, § 2(f) provides that the court shall charge the jury that in answering the mitigation special issue submitted under Subsection (e), the jury; (1)shall answer the issue "yes” or "no”; ■ (2) may not answer the issue "no” unless it agrees-unanimously and may not answer the issue "yes” unless 10 or more jurors agree; (3) need not agree of what particular evidence supports an affirmative finding on the issue; and (4) shall consider mitigating evidence to be evidence that 1 a juror might regard as reducing the defendant’s moral blameworthiness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jenkins v. State

3. “(1) The suspect is physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way; (2) A law enforcement officer tells the suspect he is not free to leave; (3) Law enforcement officers create a situation that would leave a reasonable person to believe that his freedom of movement has been significantly restricted; and (4) There is probable cause to arrest the suspect, and law enforcement officers do not tell the suspect he is free to leave. ,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reginald Dwayne Melton v. State