Gamez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Blake v. State (1998), McElwee v. McElwee (1995)
69 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 United States v. Mitchell · Barfield v. State · Carrillo v. State · Rios v. United States · Edwards 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 69 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”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No judge or justice of the peace shall sit in any case where he may be the party injured, or where he has been of counsel for the State or the accused, or where the accused or the party injured may be connected with him by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Musick v. State · Madden v. State“A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bingham v. State · Hardie 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.