Alvarez 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. “(1) Improper, extensive voir dire of the jury panel by the trial judge, particularly in the areas of reasonable doubt, witness credibility and propriety of punishment; (2) Exposure to the panel of the anticipated testimony of witnesses in the context of discussing the above issues; (3) Exposure of the fact that the Appellant's wife, a codefendant, had reached an agreement with the State in exchange for her testimony, that she had entered a plea of guilty to injury to the child by omission and that based upon a State recommendation she had been placed on probation for ten years; (4) Profane and prejudicial side-bar comments by the prosecutor concerning defense counsel’s voir dire presentation, made within the presence and possible hearing of the jury panel; (5) Pejorative, prejudicial comment by the prosecutor concerning defense counsel in the hallway, outside the courtroom, at a time when panel members were arriving for the morning session.”

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

2. “... This comment by the [trial judge] violated not only the principles governing voir dire examination but also the Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 38.05 (Vernon 1979) prohibition of judicial comment on the evidence and exposure to the jury of the judge’s opinion of the case. The tenor and detail of the comment rendered it not susceptible to any curative instruction. Based on this error alone, there existed a manifest necessity to abort the trial....”

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