McCarty v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably Emery v. State (1994), State v. Gee (1984)
50 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 Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Pate v. Robinson · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Ewell
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When non-availability of witnesses is the basis of the alleged prejudice, an appellant must show that the witnesses were unavailable at the time he was tried; that their testimony may be relevant and material to his defense, and that due diligence was exercised in an attempt to locate such witnesses at the time he was tried.” McCarty v. State, 498 S.W.2d 212, 218 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peak v. State““During almost the entire time in question, the appellant was in custody under convictions in other jurisdictions. Under these circumstances we are therefore mainly concerned with whether or not appellant’s ability to defend himself was prejudiced by the delay. Harris v. State, supra.” 498 S.W.2d 212, at 218 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Turner v. State““The length of the delay is to some extent a triggering mechanism. Until there is some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pete 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.