Gilbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. ““[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Hon- or, at this time, we will object to collateral and extraneous matters being brought up in front of the jury. They are not connected to this case. That was not opened by cross-examination as regards to this individual and for that reason, Your Honor, we had to go into these things to prove up — because of the admission by this court of this gun to show that this gun is in no way connected to the case before us now. Johnny Andrew Gilbert never said it was or indicated it was and for that reason, Your Honor, we object to now bootstrapping of the prosecution in getting into the identity and extraneous cases on Kenneth Dryden. THE COURT: Okay. Your objection is overruled. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Note our exception, Your Honor. BY [PROSECUTOR]: Q: Tell this jury who Kenneth Wayne Dryden is. A: He shot Arlington Police Officer John Bell after a bank robbery in Arlington two and a half years ago. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We renew our objection. THE COURT: Objection overruled. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Note our exception. BY [PROSECUTOR]: Q: Was that on or about April the 19th of 1985? A: Yes, it was. Q: And what type of institution was robbed? A: A Gibraltar Savings and Loan on Highway 303. Q: To the best of your knowledge, is this Defendant, Johnny Andrew Gilbert, also charged in that offense? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, objection to the extraneous and collateral matters and going into extraneous offenses at this time before this jury. THE COURT: Objection overruled. ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilbert v. State

2. ““Q: And you were talking to [appellant] regarding an incident involving another individual as well, Mr. Kenneth Dryden; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And that — your questioning and talk at that time did not involve — it was not directed toward the robbery case of February the 27th, 1985, involving a Ms. Jamie Trantham, was it? A: No. Q: And at the time that y’all went out to the field to find the gun, again, you were not being taken out there or talking to Johnny Andrew Gilbert regarding the February 27th, 1985, robbery of Jamie Trantham, were you? A: No. Q: And the statement allegedly made by Johnny Andrew Gilbert out there in the field regarding “That’s the gun,” or “That’s the one,” something to that effect, was not talking about the armed robbery of February 27th, 1985, of Jamie Trantham, was it? A: No. Q: And in regards to the statement that you have gone into about being led out to the gun and Johnny Andrew Gilbert knowing where the gun was, that is in— in regards to a statement that he made that another individual had thrown the gun out there in the field, was it not, specifically, Kenneth Dryden? [[Image here]] THE WITNESS: Okay. Would you ask the question again? Q: The statement that Johnny Gilbert made that led you to the gun was in regards to a statement that he made that the gun had been dropped in that field by Mr. Kenneth Dryden; is that correct? A: That’s correct.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilbert v. State

3. ““The fact the appellant was indicted as the co-defendant in another bank robbery, and that he was also charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer is irrelevant to this case and highly prejudicial to the appellant. We can find no permissible use for this evidence under rule 404(b). The effect of such testimony is to show that appellant is of a criminal character. Appellant properly and timely preserved his error by repeatedly objecting. Accordingly, we find that the introduction of this testimony as to appellant’s involvement was error.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilbert v. State