Fuentes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Fuentes v. State (1999), Johnson v. State (1985)
44 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 Barfield v. State · McKenzie v. State · Thompson v. State · Koller v. State · Johnson v. State
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““PROSECUTOR: You are the exclusive judges of the facts in this case and the credibility of the witnesses. That’s your job. The issue is competence to stand trial. That’s the issue. And they have the burden to prove to you that he is incompetent. And how have they met that burden? They have put on one of themselves, one of the Defense attorneys. And they put on Dr. Tilles. That’s who they called. Now they are going to tell you that we put on our own witnesses, our witnesses versus their witnesses. That’s not true. They have the burden. Let’s look at the witnesses that they put on. First of all, they put on Mr. Callahan. I'm not telling you he is a liar, but that’s for you to decide. And where— MR. SCHARMAN: Your Honor, I have to object to that comment as striking at the defendant over the shoulders of his counsel against the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. THE COURT: I overrule the objection. Ladies and gentlemen, you are to consider all the evidence. And you are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You can believe everything that a witness says, part of what a witness says, or nothing of what a witness says. You may proceed. PROSECUTOR: When Mr. Scharman was questioning Mr. Callahan, he said, ‘Who would be a better judge of whether or not the Defendant can communicate with his attorneys than the attorneys who are communicating with him?’ Use you common sense, ladies and gentlemen. If they were the ones to present that evidence, and they are the best evidence of that, o”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Satterwhite 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.