Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The circumstances described in Webber [v. State, 652 S.W.2d 781, 782 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983)] and West [v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 317 , 340 S.W.2d 813, 814-15 (App.1960)] represent narrow exceptions to the principle that when a jury has been discharged, it loses its identity as a jury, and it therefore may not redeliberate and assess a different punishment.... But the facts in this case do not match those in Webber and West. In each of those cases, when the trial court ordered the jury to reconvene, the jurors were still within eyesight of the trial court so that the trial court knew, and the record affirmatively disclosed, where the jurors had been and who they had talked to. Here, the jurors separated from the visual presence of the trial court, were instructed that they were free to discuss the case with outsiders, and may have been susceptible to outside influence.”

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

2. “We, the jury, having found the Defendant, DAVID COOK, guilty of the offense of Manslaughter, assess his punishment at confinement ... for six years.... We further find the defendant has never been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state, and we recommend probation of the penitentiary time.”

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