Martinez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[h]arm may be shown in the erroneous exclusion of a qualified juror by showing the State exhausted its peremptory challenges.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richardson v. State · Neel v. State

2. “2. That he has been convicted of theft or any felony; 3. That he is under indictment or other legal accusation for theft or any felony; 4. That he is insane or has such defect in the organs of feeling or hearing, or such bodily or mental defect or disease as to render him unfit for jury service, or that he is legally blind and either the court or the state in its discretion or the defendant or the prospective juror in his discretion is not satisfied that he is fit for jury service in that particular case.”

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

3. “from the perspective of the defendant, [was] the same as if the State had been given an extra peremptory challenge.”

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