Nickens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““MR. DIES: ‘I have nothing to say.’ A father who truly and really loves or even an adult who truly and really loves a little boy that’s living with him, who knows for a fact that another child stuck a spoon up his butt is not going to tell somebody who is there to take the child away, T have nothing to say.’ And you know that. Gosh, common sense tells you that. And I didn’t have to tell you that before I got here, but I got to argue it like a silly fool. June 7th of 1981, now I didn’t ask for that. Defense counsel asked Eileen Thacker, and she warned him, T have to tell you who told me,’ and he wanted to know anyway and he got it, and boy he got it. 1 “Eugene Lyons, 14 year old sexual pervert. Eugene Lyons kicked him in the butt. Come on now. Does that make sense? Does it all fit? And it’s from his mouth. Does it fit? If Eugene Lyons had stuck a spoon up his [the victim’s] butt at that point in time knowing the consequences don’t you think he [appellant] would have told Thacker 2 that? And I didn’t ask for that comment. That’s strong evidence, ladies and gentlemen. That’s strong evidence. And that’s a factual circumstance that has not been contradicted or controverted by any witness I called. “MR. RICE: Your Honor, that’s a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify and he has a right not to testify. “THE COURT: I will overrule that objection. Go ahead, Counsel.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Short v. State

2. “It is basic and fundamental law in this State that the failure of an accused to testify may not be the subject of comment by the prosecution [because] such [a] comment is in violation of the privilege against self-incrimination contained in Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, and [is] in express violation of Article 38.08, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.... [Such a comment] also presents a federal constitutional question as the same has been held violative of the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is made applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allen v. State

3. “The appellant argued the State was relying for conviction upon the testimony of one witness who was not believable. The State responded to such argument during the course of which the prosecutor made the complained of argument .... Taken in the context in which-it was made, the language used was not manifestly intended or of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the accused’s failure to testify.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. State