Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 76 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Strickland, the Supreme Court enunciated a two-pronged test to determine whether counsel was ineffective in his assistance at trial. To paraphrase, the defendant must first show that counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., that his assistance was not “reasonably effective.” Second, and assuming the defendant has first shown ineffective assistance, the defendant must affirmatively show prejudice. That is, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. We need not analyze this case in light of the two-pronged Strickland test, however, because we do not find that appellant’s counsel was ineffective as our prior decisions construe that term or that he was not “reasonably effective” as the Supreme Court construes that term. Ingham at 508-509 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Newsome v. State

2. ““In a criminal proceeding, when the State seeks admission of an extraneous or similar transaction committed by the accused which constitutes a separate criminal offense, introduction of that ‘extraneous offense’ transaction is inherently prejudicial, since the accused has no notice he will be called to defend against it, and his ‘propensity to commit crimes’ is not material to whether he is guilty of the specified conduct which is charged by the State....” Elkins v. State, 647 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). See also Williams v. State, supra; Rubio v. State, supra; Bates v. State, 643 S.W.2d 939, 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Moore v. State, 700 S.W.2d 193, 199 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).”

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

3. “It is not necessary, however, that the accomplice witness’ testimony be corroborated on all of his testimony, nor must the accomplice witness’ testimony directly link the accused to the offense, nor must it even be sufficient in itself to establish the accused’s guilt; it must only tend to connect the accused to the offense, [emphasis added]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bowman v. State