Garcia v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2002 · most notably Adams v. Texas (1980), Quinones v. State (1980)
53 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Jurek v. Texas · Boulden v. Holman
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]othing in Article 37.071, supra, requires that there be a final conviction for an extraneous offense to be admissible at the punishment phase.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(a) No oral or sign language statement of an accused made as a result of custodial interrogation shall be admissible against the accused in a criminal proceeding unless: "(1) an electronic recording, which may include motion picture, video tape, or other visual recording, is made of the statement; "(2) prior to the statement but during the recording the accused is given the warning in Subsection (a) of Section 2 above and the accused knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives any rights set out in the warning; “(3) the recording device was capable of making an accurate recording, the operator was competent, and the recording is accurate, has not been altered, and reflects that the accused was advised before the interrogation that the interrogation will be recorded; and "(4) all voices on the recording are identified. "(b) Every electronic recording of any statement made by an accused during a custodial interrogation must be preserved until such time as the defendant's conviction for any offense relating thereto is final, all direct appeals therefrom are exhausted, or the prosecution of such offenses is barred by law. "(c) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to any statement which contains assertions of facts or circumstances that are found to be true and which conduce to establish the guilt of the accused, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property or the instrument with which he states the offense was committed. "(d) If the accused is a deaf person,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paster v. State““Clearly, evidence of prior offenses falls within the range of ‘prior criminal conduct.’ Such ‘prior criminal conduct’ is clearly relevant to the jury’s deliberations on special issue number two . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McManus 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.