Stokes v. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis
744 F.2d 475 · 1984
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2005 · most notably Schwander v. Blackburn (1985), Alexander v. McCotter (1985)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Stovall v. Denno · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he State failed to introduce any evidence of the date Stokes committed the second felony. Since the State produced no evidence as to this essential element, it is impossible to say that a `rational trier of fact' could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the facts necessary to support the life sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e note that Texas courts stringently apply the contemporaneous objection rule in the context of improper identification. Without an objection to an in-court identification or to testimony based on an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure, no error is preserved. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 504 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (no objection to testimony by victims who identified defendant soon after robbery); Pete v. State, 501 S.W.2d 683, 686-87 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); cert. denied, 415 U.S. 959 , 94 S.Ct. 1488 , 39 L.Ed.2d 574 (1974); Hall v. State, 490 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (No objection to in-court identification by witness who had been shown only one photograph); Phillips v. State, 488 S.W.2d 97, 99 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (no objection to testimony by witness who had identified defendant in one-on-one confrontation),”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Perry v. State“The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed [the defendant’s] sentence, relying on a presumption that the offense underlying the second conviction was committed within the five-year limitations period preceding the filing of the indict-ment_ Our difficulty with the presumption employed by the Texas court is that the predicate for the presumption, i.e. the limitation period and the indictment for the [second] conviction, were not before the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Klasing
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.