Pittman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has long been the traditional practice in Texas, before and after the effective date of the 1965 Code, not to excuse a juror in capital cases who simply stated he had conscientious scruples against the death penalty but to interrogate such juror further to determine if this means that he or she could never vote for the death penalty. The challenge for cause on this ground has always been understood to mean that because of such scruples the juror could never vote to inflict the death penalty in any case regardless of the facts or circumstances. Until this appeared the challenge for cause was not sustainable. Such practice squares with the requirements of Witherspoon.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Liddell v. State · Grider v. State

2. ““If the juror’s answers be equivocal or qualified, further interrogation is per-, missible in order to ascertain his viewpoint. 35 Tex.Juris.2d., Jury, Sec. 115, p. 168. The appellant here made no such request for further interrogation. It has long been the holding of this Court that if it is doubtful whether the juror had conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of capital punishment, the court’s action in sustaining the State’s challenge for cause on that ground will be sustained on appeal. Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 713 ; Sawyer v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. 557 , 47 S.W. 650 ; Myers v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 239 , 177 S.W. 1167 ; Vickers v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 182 , 242 S.W. 1032 ; see also Article 35.21, V.A.C.C.P.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Huffman v. State

3. ““Specifically, we hold that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. No defendant can constitutionally be put to death at the hands of a tribunal so selected.””

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