Creel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 41 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 , Justice Clark, speaking for the Court, wrote that it is not required that jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved in this day of widespread and diverse methods of communication. He also noted that an important criminal case can be expected to arouse interest of the public in the vicinity and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. ⅝ ⅝ ⅝: ⅜: ⅝: ⅜ “Our courts cannot and do not operate in a vacuum. Courts deal with people and crimes which are newsworthy. To require a trial of jurors who had never heard of a highly publicized crime would be impractical if not impossible. Certainly, it was never intended that jurors were to be selected from those who did not read newspapers or keep up with current events through other media. Jurors selected from such a group, if there are enough to be called a group, would not be representative. To hold otherwise would be to hold that the perpetrator of a very highly publicized crime such as the assassination of a president, a governor or any widely known person could never be tried.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. State · Knight v. State

2. ““Additionally, appellant is not in a position to complain. He voluntarily took the witness stand and testified, without objection, concerning the evidentiary items found in his vehicle and attempted to explain them away. The fact of such admissions constitutes a waiver and renders it immaterial whether the search was made upon probable cause. Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 334 ; Palmer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 797 ; Parker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 712 ; Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 457 S.W.2d 917 ; Tsoi v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 103 ; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 745 ; Bradley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 527 .””

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

3. “... is for the purpose of preventing witnesses from hearing and being informed as to the testimony of other witnesses. The rule has no application to the exclusion of witnesses during voir dire of jurors and before any testimony on the trial has begun.”

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