Koller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Ladd v. State (1999), Madden v. State (1990)
79 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 Ramos v. State · Boyde v. State · Stein v. State · Turner v. State · Winkle 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to violate the right against self-incrimination and therefore Article 38.08, supra, the offensive language, when viewed from the jury’s standpoint, must be manifestly intended or be of such a character that the jury would necessarily and naturally take it as a comment on the accused’s failure to testify. It is not sufficient that the language might be construed as an implied or indirect allusion to the defendant’s failure to testify. In applying this standard, the facts and circumstances of each case must be analyzed to determine whether the language used was of such character. If the remark called the jury’s attention to the absence of evidence that only the testimony from the appellant could supply the conviction is subject to being reversed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Swallow v. State · Madden v. State“... [T]he failure of any defendant to .. . testify shall not be taken as a circumstance against him, nor shall the same be alluded to or commented on by counsel in the cause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hicks v. State · Barber v. State“Even if the first reference to the alleged occupation of the defendant’s associate was, as the State now claims, the accidental result of an unresponsive answer, the renewed questioning cannot be termed as such. It is apparent that the only reason the prosecutor questioned the witness further on the subject was to emphasize the inadmissible evidence to the jury. As in Gant v. State, [ 513 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)], we find that the State sought to introduce evidence which was clearly calculated to prejudice the appellant’s right to a fair trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stahl 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.