Martinez 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. “1. The reason given for the peremptory challenge is not related to the facts of the case; 2. [Tjhere was a lack of questioning to the challenged juror or a lack of meaningful questions; 8. Disparate treatment — persons with the same or similar characteristics as the challenged juror were not struck; 4. Disparate examination of members of the venire, i.e., questioning a challenged juror so as to evoke a certain response without asking the same question of other panel members; and 5. [A]n explanation based on a group bias where the group trait is not shown to apply to the challenged juror specifically.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lott v. City of Fort Worth

2. “The only views expressed by the venire-member in effect were that the D.W.I. law made sense and he understood it. We do not consider that a peremptory challenge based upon a juror’s response to the effect that he understands or agrees with the applicable law in the case is a legitimate reason for peremptory challenge as required by Batson and article 35.261.”

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