Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 812 S.W.2d 346 - Thomas v. State

Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2018

7 state decisions

40199120002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 291st Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Doyle v. Ohio · Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States · Hagemann v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n · Hernandez v. State

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

  1. “When the prosecution uses defendant’s post-arrest silence to impeach an exculpatory story offered by defendant at trial and the prosecution directly links the implausibility of the exculpatory story to the defendant’s ostensibly inconsistent act of remaining silent, reversible error results even if the story is transparently frivolous. When the prosecutor does not directly tie the fact of defendant’s silence to his exculpatory story, i.e., when the prosecutor elicits that fact on direct examination and refrains from commenting on it or adverting to it again, and the jury is never told that such silence can be used for impeach ment purposes, reversible error results if the exculpatory story is not totally implausible or the indicia of guilt not overwhelming. When there is but a single reference at trial to the fact of defendant’s silence, the reference is neither repeated nor linked with defendant’s exculpatory story, and the exculpatory story is transparently frivolous and evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming, the reference to defendant’s silence constitutes harmless error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Assuming without deciding that the note at issue constituted an informal verdict, it does not manifestly appear that the jury intended to acquit [the defendant].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.