Gardner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 148 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Rose v. State (1988), Ladd v. State (1999)
2 federal appellate · 148 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 Wainwright v. Witt · Adams v. Texas · Rabinowitz v. United States · Quinones v. State · Hawkins 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) A person commits an offense if he commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(a)(1) of this code and: * # * * * * (2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, or arson ...””
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Morrow v. State · Teague v. State““In the vast majority of cases in which argument is made or testimony comes in, deliberately or inadvertently, which has no relevance to any material issue in the case and carries with it some definite potential for prejudice to the accused, this Court has relied upon what amounts to an appellate presumption that an instruction to disregard the evidence will be obeyed by the jury. See 1 R. Ray, Texas Practice, Law of Evidence, § 29 (3rd ed. 1980). Thompson v. State, 612 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). In essence this court puts its faith in the jury’s ability, upon instruction, consciously to disregard the potential for prejudice, and then consciously to discount the prejudice, if any, in its deliberations.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Waldo v. State · Sosa v. State“A defendant in a criminal case is not bound by law to testify in his own behalf and the failure of any defendant to so testify shall not be taken as a circumstance against him nor shall the same be alluded to nor commented upon by the jury, and you must not refer to, mention, comment upon or discuss the failure of the defendant to testify in this case. If any juror starts to mention the defendant’s failure to testify in this case then it is the duty of the other jurors to stop him at once.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Linder v. State · Caldwell 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.