Lambrecht v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The Rules of Post Trial and Appellate Procedure governing petitions for discretionary review in this Court do not authorize review of claims which have not been presented in an orderly fashion and determined by the appropriate court of appeals."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chambers v. State · Tallant v. State

2. ““But see Martin v. State, 630 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) in which the Court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s reasoning that the independent right to self-representation does not arise from the accused’s power to waive assistance of counsel and observed that prior decisions of this Court which had iterated exacting ‘requisites’ for establishing a knowing waiver of counsel, [e.g., Barbour v. State, 551 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Goodman v. State, 591 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); and Geeslin v. State, 600 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1980)], had read Faretta incorrectly. We stated: “The Faretta opinion simply cannot reasonably be read to require that a trial judge spread upon the record all. such information and data about an accused that might conceivably impugn his decision to represent himself....” 630 S.W.2d at 954, n. 5 ; see also Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 586, n. 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Opinion concurring). “Thus, the validity of the premise of appellant’s argument — that the trial court’s failure to admonish him in accordance with Geeslin, supra, violates Faret-ta — is doubtful.” 5”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Saunders v. State