Marshburn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It was stated in Alejandro v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 230 at 231 that to be approved by this Court, ‘[J]ury arguments need to be within the areas of (1) summation of the evidence; (2) reasonable deduction from the evidence; (3) answer to argument of opposing counsel; and (4) plea for law enforcement.’ (Citations omitted from text). The arguments of the prosecutor do not come within any of the permissible areas of jury argument. On the contrary, the prosecutor’s arguments were calculated to introduce prejudice into the mind of the jurors. Cf. Hernandez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 366 S.W.2d 575 at 576 . The prejudice introduced by the prosecutor operates by urging the jury to impose an excessive prison term to compensate for or protect against the action of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. “The prosecutor said, in relation to the term of years prisoners were required to serve by the Board of Pardons and Paroles, ‘and you [the jury] say five years and two years later they [the defendants] are out committing another offense.’ This argument demonstrated the operation of the parole laws by inviting the jury to look at records of prior offenses which had been introduced into evidence to see how long it would take for a defendant to be released by the Board of Pardons and Paroles as compared to the length of the sentence originally assessed. The effect of this argument is to demonstrate past applications of the parole law, asking the jury to increase the punishment which would o”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kearney v. State · Clanton v. State

2. ““[MR. GREEN]: ... I know if you give him life or if you give him two hundred and fifty years, do you realize this, I want to read you this little thing right here and this is all I can say about this particular paragraph, I am no allowed to comment any more. In determining the punishment in this case, you are instructed that you are not to discuss among yourselves how long the Defendant will be required to serve any sentence you decide to impose. “What that is saying, if you give him life or one hundred and two or two hundred and fifty years, if you know or think he will just be there eight years, you can’t discuss that and I can’t discuss it, I can’t tell you, but you can, if you know yourselves, base your decision, your verdict upon that. “MR. WATKINS: Your Honor, he is just saying he can’t say something about it and he said it in the next sentence. “THE COURT: The jury won’t consider the last argument of the District Attorney for any purpose. “MR. GREEN: If you do know the law, you can’t discuss it with another juror but you yourselves can consider it. “Such matters come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Governor of the State of Texas and are of no concern of yours. “That no concern of yours is what bothers me in that particular paragraph, you are instructed it is of no concern of yours if you give somebody twenty years if they are out in two years, they tell you it is no concern of yours, you give somebody life and they are out ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clanton v. State · Sneed v. State

3. “****** “The Judge has told you in his charge that you have no control over the exact term of years that these men will serve; that’s to be determined by the Board of Pardons and Paroles and you will look in these judgments and will find being sentenced from anywhere from two to five years and you say five years and two years later they are out committing another offense. Look at the records.” ****** “The Judge told you you can’t consider how long these people are going to serve when they are in the penitentiary. I would suggest to you the only way that you are going to do any good and help us here in Dallas County is to make examples of each and every one of the five ... “... You know the big verdicts you hear about are not reasonable' ... ... you know no person has lived 2,000 years. ... You know no man can live that long, but I say you have to do something to draw attention, to make these people different than the rest of the people in the jail, to make somebody, somebody who decides how long they are actually going to serve, say this is different than the rest of the life cases that we see. There is something special about this case. I can see right here by the verdict it stands out, I better look into this.” (Emphasis in original).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. State · Sneed v. State