Varela v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Further, we cannot reach the conclusion that Lt. Slocum had the $75.00 delivered to Levine two and one-half years prior to the actual trial of the case in order to conceal evidence and deprive the appellant of the right of compulsory process of witnesses. The appellant had not even been arrested, and no indictment had ever been returned at the time. The record reflects that Slocum’s reasons were dictated by his concern for Levine’s personal safety and security which would make it a ‘good idea’ for Levine to leave town prior to the narcotics roundup. As stated in the concurring opinion on the State’s motion for rehearing in White (517 S.W.2d 543): “ ‘. It is certainly common knowledge that lives of informers in narcotic cases are in constant danger. The conversation appears to have taken place shortly after Le-veine’s (sic) activities as an informer had been completed. Upon Leveine’s (sic) suggestion that he “needed some money to eat” Slocum sent $75.00 by one of his officers. The amount involved was not sufficient to allow him to travel any great distance or to keep him in food for long.’ Slocum’s action cannot be seen as a calculated attempt to deprive this appellant of compulsory process because of Levine’s unavailability two and one-half years later. Indeed, Levine’s appearance as a witness at future trials would seem to be more assured and likely if he sought safety out of town at the time than if he remained in town at the mercy of alleged narcotics pushers who might be”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Salinas

2. ““Q (Appellant’s counsel): Did you ever have occasion to talk to Mr. Levine about the advisability of him staying in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas? “A (Lt. Slocum): Yes, sir. “Q What were the facts surrounding that conversation? “A He said — we told him the raid was going to go down and he said he was going to leave town but didn’t have any money. I told him I thought that was a good idea. I still think it was a good idea. He said he didn’t have any money. I gave Detective Doyal $75.00 for eating money. “Q You knew when you paid Officer Doyal that $75.00 that that was going to be given to Mr. Levine; he was going to use it to leave town? “A I sent it out to the man. He said he was leaving town. Now, whether he was going to or not, I don’t know. “Q But, you knew it was to be his advantage to leave town? “A If I was in his shoes, I would have left town I guarantee you. “Q And you advised him of the big bust before it went down, right? “A Yes, he was advised.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Salinas

3. “did not cause citation to be issued for the missing witness until ... the day before the trial on the merits began.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dewberry v. State