Martinez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2004
7 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 198th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Carrillo v. State · Bowden v. State · Paulus v. State · Dickey 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 7 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”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. De La Rosa 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. De La Rosa 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.