Montoya v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Madden v. State (1990), Cockrell v. State (1996)
123 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Doyle v. Ohio
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any defendant in a criminal action shall be permitted to testify in his own behalf therein, but the failure of any defendant to so testify shall not be taken as a circumstance against him, nor shall the same be alluded to or commented on by counsel in the cause.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Morgan v. State“In order to violate the right against self-incrimination and therefore Article 38.08 ... the offensive language, when viewed from the jury’s standpoint, must be manifestly intended or be of such a character that the jury would necessarily and naturally take it as a comment on the accused’s failure to testify. It is not sufficient that the language might be construed as an implied or indirect allusion to the defendant’s failure to testify. In applying this standard, the facts and circumstances of each case must be analyzed to determine whether the language used was of such a character. If the remark called the jury’s attention to the absence of evidence that only the testimony from the appellant could supply[,] the conviction is subject to being reversed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · Pena v. State“[PROSECUTOR:] He [Jordan] was given his is [sic] statutory warning about submitting a breath or blood sample. Mr. Marsh will have you believe, well, that’s of no benefit to him if he gives a breath or blood sample. You mean to tell me that if that sample came back .03, for example, when the legal limit is way up to .10, that wouldn’t be important for you to know that, that it was that much below what is considered legally intoxicated? I submit to you it was an extreme benefit if he’s not intoxicated for you to know what that level is. But he knows, and he is the only person who really knows. He knows— [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’m going to object to that, your Honor. Failure of the defendant to testify. THE COURT: Sustained. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ask that the jury be instructed to disregard the last remark by the counsel for the State. THE COURT: The jury is instructed to disregard the previous comment by— [PROSECUTOR]: Judge, am I being instructed not to argue that the defendant refused the test? THE COURT: No. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: At this time, your Honor, we’d move for mistrial. THE COURT: That’s denied. [PROSECUTOR]: He refused. He didn’t want you to know what that reading was going to be. Why? Why didn’t he want you to know? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’m going to object to that, your Honor. It’s more argument on the failure of the defendant to testify. [PROSECUTOR]: And I disagree. THE COURT: I’ll overrule that objection. Go ahead. [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pyles v. State · Jordan 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.