Parker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2006
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 87 Tex. Crim. 330 - Taylor v. State · 147 Tex. Crim. 636 - Franklin v. State · 108 Tex. Crim. 452 - Mason v. State · Watkins v. State · 33 Tex. Crim. 575 - Mitchell v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Very wisely the jury has been made the exclusive judges of the facts proven and the weight to be given to the testimony * * * this court does not, and should not, assume to exercise the right to reverse on the facts, unless the evidence, when viewed in its strongest light from the standpoint of the state, fails to make guilt reasonably certain. * * “While this court has the right to reverse a judgment of conviction on account of the insufficiency of the evidence (Texas Code Crim.Procedure, art. 939) and it becomes its duty to do so ‘if the guilt of the accused is not made to appear with reasonable certainty’ (Mitchell v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 575 , 28 S.W. 475 ), no fixed rule has been devised which will in all cases furnish a certain standard. Necessarily each case must in a measure be tested by its own facts (Mitchell v. State, * * *; Hampton v. State, 1 Tex.App. 652 ; Burrill on Circumstantial Evidence, p. 737; Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, p. 188). However, when a jury, advised of the restrictions which the law places upon them in condemning one on circumstantial evidence, reaches the conclusion upon evidence properly before them that the accused is guilty, it is not for the reviewing court to supplant their findings by its own unless it is able to point to weaknesses, omissions, or inconsistencies in the evidence which destroy its cogency. This, in the instant case, we are unable to do. (Quote from Taylor v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 330 , 221 S.W. 611 , at pages 613 and ”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Manross v. State · Vaughn v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.