Koehler v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 227th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Burks v. United States · Greene v. Massey · Johnson v. Louisiana · United States v. Mauro · Edward Dreyer v. People of the State of Illinois
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“MR. MATA (the prosecuting attorney): Judge, Ms. Marquez (defense counsel) now has the witness [Blackwell] on cross examination and from the first trial I know that Ms. Marquez will try to get into specific acts of misconduct. I would like to have a hearing in front of the court regarding exactly what Ms. Marquez— THE COURT: That’s why we are here. Let’s have the hearing. What is it that you want to ask this lady? MS. MARQUEZ (defense counsel): Judge, incidents where she had attacked Mr. Koehler [the appellant] in public, throwing drinks at him and tried to attack girls that have been in his company at clubs and different things of that na ture and I want to show motive and prejudice. THE COURT: You don’t mind her telling about him if you want to show her character? MS. MARQUEZ: We have not put his reputation in issue. We are saying she is testifying because she has a motive, she is prejudiced, attacked him on numerous occasions and attacked other women he has been with. THE COURT: She [Blackwell] is going to have the right to tell about him [the appellant], what he has done to her and other women that she knows about. It works both ways. I understand you have a right, but she [Blackwell] has a right to know about certain things he has done. Besides, that is not material. That would be subject to introduction anyway, what she has done to the people. MR. MATA: That’s our position, what— involvement between her and other people has no relevancy. MS. MARQUEZ: It does insofar as i”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Koehler 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.