Barrera v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or both. Each party to an offense may be charged with the commission of the offense. A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another, if acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. A defendant’s mere presence alone will not make him responsible for an offense. A defendant’s mere knowledge of a crime or failure to disclose a crime also is not sufficient.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Abraham Linares v. State · Romeo Hinojosa v. State

2. “Three or more members and associates of the Cossacks Motorcycle Club (Cossacks) were in the parking lot of the Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, McLen-nan County Texas. Three or more members and associates of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club (Bandidos) arrived in the parking lot of the Twin Peaks restaurant and engaged in an altercation with the members and associates of the Cossacks. During the course of the altercation, members and associates of the Cossacks and Bandidos brandished and used firearms, knives or other .unknown edged weapons, batons, clubs, brass knuckles, and other weapons. The weapons were used to threaten and/or assault the opposing factions. Cossacks and Bandidos discharged firearms at one another. Members of the Waco Police Department attempted to stop the altercation ,and were fired upon by Ban-didos and/or Cossacks. Waco Police Officers returned fire, striking multiple gang members. During the exchange of gunfire, multiple persons where [sic] shot. Nine people died as a result of the shooting between the members of the biker gangs. Multiple other people were injured as a result of the altercation. The members and associates of the Cossacks and Bandidos were wearing common identifying distinctive signs or symbols and/or had an identifiable leadership and/or continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities. The Texas Department of Public Safety maintains a database containing information identifying the Cossacks and their associates a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Reginald Weathers

3. “Application, Liability as a Party Now bearing in mind the foregoing instructions, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that 1. On or about the 2nd day of May 2011, in Webb County, Texas, Abraham Linares, Romeo Hinojo-sa, and/or Carlos Zambrano, acting alone or as a party (a person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both) caused the abduction of an individual, Nestor Abundez, by restricting his movement with the intent to prevent his liberation by secreting him or holding him in a place where he was not likely to be found; 2. During the commission of the assault, Abraham Linares, Romeo Hinojosa, and/or Carlos Zambrano used or exhibited a deadly weapon; 3. Abraham Linares, Romeo Hinojo-sa, and/or Carlos Zambrano did this intentionally or knowingly; and 4. Abraham Linares, Romeo Hinojo-sa, and/or Carlos Zambrano acted, solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or attempted to aid with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense of Aggravated Kidnapping, First Degree Felony, by Abraham Linares, Romeo Hinojosa, and/or Carlos Zambrano then you must say by your verdict “guilty.” If you find that the State did not prove each of the first three elements under the heading “Application as Pri-mar/’ and you find that the State did not prove each of these four elements under this heading beyond a reasonable doubt you mus”

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