Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Following the reasoning of the court in Williams , we hold that, if note-taking by jurors will assist them, the court may permit them to take notes under appropriate conditions and admonitions. If jurors become too busy taking notes that their attention is diverted from the evidence, the court can instruct the jurors that their note-taking should not be such that they fail to pay attention to the evidence. Furthermore, to prevent the jurors from placing improper importance on their notes, a court can instruct the jury that jurors’ notes are not to be considered as evidence and, that in the event of disagreement, the jurors should request the disputed testimony be read from the official record.”

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

2. “the inherent danger that the state will use a juror’s question to gain an unfair advantage in the presentation of its case requires the closest scrutiny of the trial court’s discretion whenever it allows jurors to pose questions to witnesses.”)). 2 . 845 S.W.2d 882, 889 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 3 . Wilson v. State, 845 S.W.2d 908, 908-09 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). 4 . See Morrison, 845 S.W.2d at 889 . Although Judge Miller’s concurring opinion in Morrison does not clearly indicate whether he joined the majority on”

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