Beck v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “■ The twofold approach of Jones was distilled from the provisions of Article 40.03, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, reading in pertinent part: New trials, in cases of felony, shall be granted the defendant for the following causes, and for no other: (7) Where the jury, after having retired to deliberate upon a case, has received other evidence .... (8) Where, from the misconduct of the jury, the court is of the opinion that the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. State · Sneed v. State

2. ““Although it is obvious that the jury improperly discussed the parole law, we are unable to say that Richardson or any other juror changed his or her vote as a result of the discussion. Her testimony is conflicting and she could only speculate whether the discussion affected the other jurors. She was sure that she herself had not consciously relied upon the discussion. . . . The trial judge, having the right to accept or reject any part of her testimony, obviously accepted Richardson’s statements that she did not know about the other jurors but that the dis cussion about parole did not influence her. We are unable to say that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.””

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

3. ““The evidence shows at best that the jurors mentioned that which is common knowledge about the law of parole; i.e., some inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections are released prior to serving their full term, especially if they behave well in the penitentiary. No juror professed to know the law of parole and none misstated the law to the others. Such conduct on the part of the jury does not constitute receipt of additional evidence so as to require reversal under Article 40.03, Section 7, V.A.C.C.P., and although mentioning the parole law constitutes jury misconduct, here it was not such misconduct as to deny appellant a fair and impartial trial.””

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