Rangel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the number of cases in which the informant has been involved and their disposition, if available; (2) the amount and method of compensating the informant; (3) the working relationship between the peace officer and the informant; and (4) the nature of the informant’s contact with peace officers.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Soto v. State · Gobin v. State

2. “(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ivatury v. State · Martinez v. State

3. “"Sec. 8.06(b) clearly requires some type of communication between the law enforcement official and his agent or informant, than action by the informant on this communication. The nature of this communication and the extent to which the informant must be instructed or controlled by the law enforcement official has yet to be determined by this Court. However, the mere classification or labeling of a citizen as a `police informant' is clearly insufficient when one considers the language of Sec. 8.06(b) and the practice commentary following. That commentary provides: "`The promotion of crime by anyone for the purpose of enforcing the law is questionable, and it certainly should not be permitted by agents over whom the police have control. Thus, the police should at the very least, apprise their agents of methods not to be used.' "The quest in such cases is to determine the degree of police involvement and to judge whether that involvement provided only the opportunity for the criminal mind to commit the offense. Lopez v. State, 574 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.Cr. App.1978). Such an examination must cover two areas. "The first area of inquiry should be the specific case at bar. A search must be made to determine if the officer specifically instructed his agent or informant to use an improper procedure to `make a case' against a particular defendant. If such specific instructions are discovered, the entrapment defense is available.... "The control or instruction from a police officer to his in”

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