Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2011 · most notably Johnson v. Texas (1993), McFarland v. State (1996)
4 federal appellate · 23 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Wainwright v. Witt · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Murphy v. Florida
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In Texas, this mitigating evidence is admissible at the punishment phase of a capital murder trial. Once admitted, the jury may then give it weight, if in their individual minds it is appropriate, when answering the questions which determine sentence. However, `[t]he amount of weight that the factfinder might give any particular piece of mitigating evidence is left to "the range of judgment and discretion" exercised by each juror.'" Johnson, 773 S.W.2d at 331 (citations omitted).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t has long been the law of this [S]tate that the statutory requirement that jurors be able to read and write meant something more than the mere ability to “write his name and nothing more.” Hernandez v. State, 506 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Rather, the prospective juror should possess the ability to express their ideas in words upon paper. Hernandez at 887 citing Johnson v. State, 21 Tex.App. 368 , 17 S.W. 252 (1886). This is a determination which rightfully belongs to the trial court and, absent an abuse of discretion, such a finding will not be disturbed on appeal. Garcia v. State, 581 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Cr. App.1979) (vacated and remanded on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902 , 101 S.Ct. 3133 , 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hodge v. State · Allridge v. State““Appellant contends the trial court erroneously denied his challenges to veniremen (sic) Gloria Fishman, Barry Hlu-chan, and Lawrence Dunn. Appellant claims the veniremen would have refused to consider certain factors in mitigation of punishment.... “the trier of fact must not be precluded from considering any relevant mitigating evidence in answering the special issues. However, the cases do not mandate the trier of fact must give any specified weight to a particular piece of evidence. The amount of weight that the fact-finder must give any particular piece of mitigating evidence is left to the range of judgement and discretion exercised by each juror.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Allridge 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.