Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 755 S.W.2d 541 - Peake v. State

Peake v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 1992
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 185th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Burks v. United States · Greene v. Massey · Thomas v. State · McGoldrick v. State · United States v. Wright-Barker

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[STATE]: I beg the Court's indulgence. I would like again to reurge the admissibility of the tape or allow the State to research the law even further. I'm confident I could bring the Court even more cases to show that tape is admissible. I'm worried about the consequences of this trial since I mentioned the tape in my opening argument, fully believing that it would be admissible. * * * * * * [COURT]: I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll cure that. I'm not going to do that: but I'll allow— I'll require the defense to not make mention of the fact you didn't bring a tape so you won't get into that situation, since it wasn't brought. So we'll—that way—I know what you're saying, It happens sometime. `Well, they said we're going to do this and that. Why didn't they? Must be hiding something.' So I don't want that happening. If the defense does slip and do it, then I'll open it up. [DEFENSE]: Oh, no. [COURT]: That should be strong enough for them not to get you into that trick bag. Let's bring the jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]here a statement by the Government in opening argument is not substantiated at trial by a subsequent ruling by the trial judge, both the good faith on the part of the prosecution and the impact of the statement in the context of the particular trial must be assessed. United States v. Akin, 562 F.2d 459, 466 (7th Cir.1977); United States v. Prieto, 505 F.2d 8, 12 (5th Cir.1974).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “expressly ordered defense counsel not to discuss the failure of the State to introduce the confession.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.