Losada v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Clewis v. State (1996), Jones v. State (1996)
101 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 Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Enmund v. Florida · Turner v. Louisiana · Crocker v. State · Martin 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The test to determine the sufficiency of the corroboration is to eliminate from consideration the evidence of the accomplice witness and then examine the testimony of other witnesses to ascertain if there is inculpatory evidence which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. If there is such evidence, the corroboration is sufficient; otherwise, it is not. 2. The corroborative evidence need not directly link the accused to the crime or be sufficient in itself to establish guilt. 3. All the facts and circumstances in evidence may be looked to as furnishing the corroboration necessary. 4. The corroborative evidence may be circumstantial or direct. 5. The combined cumulative weight of the incriminating evidence furnished by the non-accomplice witnesses which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense supplies the test. 6. Apparently insignificant circumstances sometimes afford satisfactory evidence of guilt and corroboration of the accomplice witness. 7. No precise rule can be laid down as to the amount of evidence that is requisite to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, so as to sustain a conviction of the accused; therefore, each case must be considered on its own facts and circumstances. 8. Evidence merely showing the commission of an offense is not sufficient alone to corroborate an accomplice witness, but it is a factor to be considered along with other possible factors. 9. The same is true of evidence merely showing th”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. De La Rosa v. State“A prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s failure to testify offends both our State and Federal Constitutions. Nickens v. State, 604 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). For a statement to constitute a comment on the failure to testify, the language of such a statement must be either manifestly intended, or of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. Griffin v. State, 554 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). For an indirect comment to constitute reversible error, it must call for a denial of an assertion of fact or contradictory evidence that only the defendant is in a position to offer. Short v. State, 671 S.W.2d 888 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Johnson v. State, 611 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson 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.