Jacobs v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Deboue v. Louisiana (1990), Muniz v. State (1993)
2 federal appellate · 52 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 · Edwards v. Arizona · Wainwright v. Witt · Moran v. Burbine · Scharffe v. Perkins
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the voir dire “of the individual venire-person” must be recorded and transcribed; (2) the appellant must assert “a clear and specific challenge for cause clearly articulating the grounds therefor;” (3) after the challenge for cause is denied by the trial court, appellant must use a peremptory strike on that juror; (4) all peremptory challenges must be exhausted; (5) when all peremptory challenges are spent, appellant must request additional peremptory challenges; and (6) the appellant must assert that an objectionable juror sat on the case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Long v. State · Long v. State““Before applying the Fisher test to each of the purported inducements we note that [the defendant] approached the State for assurances that certain conditions be met before he would make inculpatory state ments or lead investigators to the deceased’s body. Because [defendant] acted in the role of dealmaker our analysis is cast in a different light. Caselaw in this area has generally reflected fact situations where the State stood accused of soliciting confessions in exchange for promises of leniency or special deals, [citing Smith v. State, 779 S.W.2d 417, 427 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), and others including Fisher, supra.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Arnold v. State“The State is entitled to have a prospective juror excluded for cause if the juror has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely. If a prospective juror manifests an intention to hold the State to a stricter standard of proof than that of beyond a reasonable doubt, then that juror is subject to a challenge for cause under Article 35.16(b)(3), V.A.C.C.P. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cook 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.