Deeb v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Helms v. State, 493 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tex.Crim.App.1973), the co-conspirator’s statement was made to facilitate the disposal of the murder weapon. In Rodriguez v. State, 552 S.W.2d 451, 454 , the co-conspirator’s statements were made to further the negotiations for the purchase of the illegal drugs. In Denney v. State, 558 S.W.2d 467, 469 , the co-conspirator’s statements were made for the purpose of disposing of the fruits of the crime and evidence that the crime had been committed. In contrast to these examples, in Ward v. State, 657 S.W.2d 133, 136-137 , the co-conspirator’s statements were made in response to questioning after the murder had been completed and the defendant was in custody.”

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

2. “It is difficult to conclude from the record that the State was maneuvering for a tactical advantage and was therefore responsible for the delay.” Id. The Court concluded that this was a”

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

3. “A statement is not hearsay if [t]he statement is offered against a party and is a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

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