Reed v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Burks v. State (1994), DeBlanc v. State (1990)
129 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 Mitchell v. Texas · Carrillo v. State · Edwards v. State · McManus v. State · Paulus 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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Badillo v. State · Meador v. State“(1) each case must be considered on its own facts and circumstances; (2) all the facts and circumstances in evidence may be looked to as furnishing the corroboration necessary; (3) corroborative evidence may be circumstantial or direct; (4) the combined cumulative weight of the incriminating evidence furnished by the non-accomplice witness which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense supplies the test; (5) it is not necessary that the corroboration directly link the accused to the crime or be sufficient in itself to establish guilt; (6) insignificant circumstances sometimes afford most satisfactory evidence of guilt and corroboration of accomplice witness testimony.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rivera v. State · Moreno v. State“eliminate from consideration the evidence of the accomplice witness and then to examine the evidence of other witnesses with the view to ascertain if there be inculpatory evidence, that is[] evidence of incriminating character which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. If there is such evidence, the corroboration is sufficient; otherwise, it is not (emphasis in original, citations omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rivera v. State · Moreno 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.