Banks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant in a Texas criminal case is entitled to reasonably effective assistance of counsel. In Strickland v. Washington, [ 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ], the United States Supreme Court held that in order to show ineffective assistance of counsel, a convicted defendant must (1) show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient, in that counsel made such serious errors he was not functioning effectively as counsel; and (2) show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense to such a degree that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. In this connection, a strong presumption exists that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. ‘Prejudice,’ however, is demonstrated when the convicted defendant shows ‘a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.’ A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome. The Strickland standard has been adopted in Texas for resolving allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel under both the federal and state constitutions. Whether the Strickland standard has been met is to be judged by the “totality of the representation” rather than by isolated acts or omissions of the trial counsel, and the test is applied at the time of the trial, not through hindsight. The burden of proving ineffective assistanc”

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

2. “[T]he application paragraph authorized a conviction based solely on the finding that the appellant intentionally or knowingly engaged in conduct which happened to cause bodily injury to a child. A result-oriented offense cannot be based solely upon such a finding.... [T]he language in a jury charge involving a result-oriented offense “that defines a culpable mental state with respect to conduct adds nothing ... and it allows the jury to do that which the law does not — find the accused guilty ... based only on his conduct, rather than on intending or knowing the prohibited result.” (Citations omitted; Emphasis added)”

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

3. “A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.”

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