Vega v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Unless a contrary intent clearly appears elsewhere in this title, any right granted to a child by this title or by the constitution or laws of this state or the United States may be waived in proceedings under this title if: (1) the waiver is made by the child and the attorney for the child; (2) the child and the attorney waiving the right are informed of and understand the right and the possible consequences of waiving it; (3) the waiver is voluntary; and (4) the waiver is made in writing or in court proceedings that are recorded. (b) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of Subsection (a) of this section, the statement of a child is admissible in evidence in any future proceeding concerning the matter about which the statement was given if: (1)when the child is in a detention facility or other place of confinement or in the custody of an officer, the statement is made in writing and the statement shows that the child has at some time prior to the making thereof received from a magistrate a warning that: (A) the child may remain silent and not make any statement at all and that any statement the child makes may be used in evidence against the child; (B) the child has the right to have an attorney present to advise the child either prior to any questioning or during the questioning; (C) if the child is unable to employ an attorney, the child has the right to have an attorney to counsel with the child prior to or during any interviews with peace officers or attorneys repre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vega v. State

2. “This title shall be construed to effectuate the following public purposes: (1) to provide for the care, the protection, and the wholesome moral, mental, and physical development of children coming within its provisions; (2) to protect the welfare of the community and to control the commission of unlawful acts by children; (3) consistent with the protection of the public interest, to remove the children committing unlawful acts the taint of criminality and the consequences of criminal behavior and to substitute a program of treatment, training, and rehabilitation; (4) to achieve the foregoing purposes in a family environment whenever possible, separating the child from his parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interest of public safety and when a child is removed from his family, to give him the care that should be provided by parents; and (5)to provide a simple judicial procedure through which the provisions of this title are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights recognized and enforced.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vega v. State

3. “[B]ecause art. 38.22 § 3(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was procedural in nature, a trial judge is required to apply Texas law to determine the admissibility of an oral confession obtained in another state. [The Davidson Court] also held that because the mandatory requirement of art. 38.22 § 3(a), that an oral custodial statement must be recorded before it can be used against a defendant, was not followed by the authorities in Montana, appellant's oral confession was inadmissible at his Texas trial. Vega v. State, 84 S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (en banc) (citing Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 185-86 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)). In Vega, the court of criminal appeals concluded Davidson did not apply because (1) the challenged statement was written and, thus, did not violate the provisions of article 38.22, and (2) "pursuant to the Code Construction Act, the sections of the Family Code relevant to confessions prevail over art[icle] 38.22.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vega v. State