Martinez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “The statute does not contain language indicating that different indictments arising out of the same criminal episode should be treated differently, and we do not chose [sic] to add such a condition to the application of the article. Compare Ex parte McNeil, 772 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ). For whatever reason, the first court in that case did not acknowledge the above-discussed exception to the applicability of art. 17.151.”

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

2. “The order of the Court releasing McNeil on personal bond for the original charge of capital murder clearly should have been applied to the two new charges of murder and aggravated kidnapping which grew out of the original capital murder charge. The legal maneuvering by the State to obtain two indictments from one criminal episode does not alter the fact that McNeil was held for over 90 days before she was indicted on any charge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Beckcom v. State

3. “arises out of the same transaction and could have been brought against the appellant at the same time the murder charge was brought. This “stringing out” of the indictments is the very evil the appellate court found objectionable in Ex parte McNeil, 772 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Beckcom v. State