Ramirez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably State v. Turner (1981), Burks v. State (1994)
28 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 Alejandro v. State · Big MacK Trucking Company, Inc. v. Dickerson · Pecina v. State · 153 Tex. Crim. 29 - Cameron v. State · 98 Tex. Crim. 364 - Stone 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The long established rule in Texas is that declarations of a third party admitting his guilt of the crime for which the accused is on trial are admissible only when the State is relying upon circumstantial evidence, when the guilt of such party is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, and when the facts show that such party was so situated that he might have committed the crime. Cameron v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 29 , 217 S.W.2d 23 (1949); McCormick and Ray, Texas Laws of Evidence, Sections 1005 and 1006 (2d ed. 1956). See also Woodard v. State, 463 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ballew v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 636 , 141 S.W.2d 654 (1940). Appellant recognizes this rule but urges us to reconsider the rule and allow the statement to be admitted. This we decline to do.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State · Dickson v. State“[Declarations of a third party admitting that he committed the offense for which the accused is on trial are admissible when the State is relying solely upon circumstantial evidence, when the guilt of the third party is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, and when the facts show that such party was so situated that he might have committed the crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dickson v. State · Marmon v. State“That the statement is a declaration against penal interest and could subject the declarant to criminal liability is alone not enough to satisfy the requirement of trustworthiness.... As this Court noted in Stone v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 364 , 265 S.W. 900 (1924), “Allowing proof of innocence by the self-assumed blame of one beyond the reach of the law would soon disorganize criminal procedure.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.