Carroll v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under the doctrine known as “law of the case,” “an appellate court’s resolution of a question of law in a previous appeal of the same case will govern the disposition of the same issue when raised in a subsequent appeal.” Howlett v. State, 994 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (citations omitted). However, the doctrine’s application is not inflexible. Id. One of the circumstances in which an appellate court may reconsider its earlier disposition of a point of law is when there has been a change in the controlling law between the time of the first appellate determination and the time that the case is brought on a second appeal. See 5 AmJuk 2d Appellate Review § 613 (1995); E.H. Schopler, Annotation, Erroneous decision as law of the case on subsequent appellate review, 87 A.L.R.2d 271 , 357-58, 1963 WL 13469 (1963 & Supp.2000);....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carroll, Timothy Earl v. State

2. “The issue of whether the right to silence continued at sentencing after a waiver of that right during the guilt phase was unsettled at the time of appellant’s plea. Thus, appellant was explicitly warned about a waiver of the long-standing right to silence at the guilt phase, but was not given a similar specific warning regarding a right to silence at sentencing. Indeed, she was told by the trial court that she did not have such a right. After Mitchell , we cannot conclude that the facts presented here show that appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her federal constitutional right against self-incrimination at sentencing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Glenn Tony Birdsong II v. State

3. “10. Pursuant to Article 1.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, I waive all rights of form, substance or procedure given me by law. [[Image here]] 12. I waive my right not to incriminate myself, agree to testify if called as a witness and judicially confess under oath that each and every allegation contained in the indictment or information which is not waived by the State is true and I am guilty of the offense as charged.”

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