Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 820 SW2D 29 - Delrio v. State

Delrio v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 1994
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hernandez v. State · Ex Parte Felton · Salazar v. State · Harris 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “THE COURT: Mr. Martinez, you indicated earlier that you knew the defendant and you might have a problem. [Martinez]: Yes, sir, I wanted to make the statement to the Court that I'm an ex-narcotics officer for the City of Houston and that I didn't want to say that in front of the jury to throw a monkey wrench in the voir dire. THE COURT: You feel like you know this defendant by virtue of that employment? [Martinez]: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Therefore, you feel you probably would not be able to be a fair and impartial juror? [Martinez]: Exactly. THE COURT: Do you have a challenge? [Defense Counsel]: All that we are asking you at this point is whether or not under the proper set of circumstances you can be a fair and impartial juror and put aside your feelings, whatever they are, based on prior experiences and listen strictly to the facts of the case and render a verdict according to the law. [Martinez]: I couldn't be impartial, I'm saying. THE COURT: There is no challenge? Have a seat.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"We can conceive of no reasonable defense strategy that would justify allowing such an individual to sit on a jury to determine the legal fate of one's client in a criminal trial. Permitting such an occurrence undermines in advance the perceived essence of a jury's purpose to render a fair and impartial verdict. Indeed, if the presumptive purpose of all "official" participants in the process is to secure a fair trial, it would have been prudent, although not legally mandated, for the trial judge, or even the prosecutor, to have sought removal of this individual from participation in this case."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “unfair for police officers to work undercover and make cases, as maybe they should be required to wear their uniforms and identify themselves as police officers,”
    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.