Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably Carrillo v. State (1979), McManus v. State (1979)
48 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 Brown v. State · Edwards v. State · Cherb v. State · Ysasaga v. State · Hinkle 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission *Page 181 of the offense, and such corroborative evidence, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof, is not sufficient."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . where there is any doubt as to the fact that a given witness is an ac complice witness and such fact issue is submitted to the jury, such procedure is sufficient even though the evidence appears largely to preponderate in favor of the fact that such witness is an accomplice as a matter of law. Allen at p. 625 . Accord: Dears v. State, 506 S.W.2d 606 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) ; Zitterich v. State, 5Ó2 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973) ; Van Buskirk v. State, 492 S.W.2d 279 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Lopez v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 97 , 242 S.W.2d 212 (1922).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bentley v. State““It is well established that ... admissions or confessions, under most circumstances, will be sufficient to corroborate the accomplice witness. We reject any contention that appellant’s testimony must be excluded in ascertaining the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the accomplice witness because he testified he acted in self-defense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Romero 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.