Delrio v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Thompson v. State (1999), Jackson v. State (1994)
1 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jones v. State · De La Rosa v. State · Arcila v. State · Williams 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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 into 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 accord 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 · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. State“we have recognized [the constitutional guarantee of an impartial jury] to be a right of the accused, which must be pressed in some fashion at trial before reversal of his conviction may be predicated on its breach. Were this not the case, the court of appeals could simply have reversed the conviction in the cause because a juror served who was not fair and impartial, irrespective of whether counsel took positive steps to prevent it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Morales“when the accused challenged a venireman for cause on the basis that he could not be a fair and impartial juror, the challenge was [erroneously] denied” and the venireman sat on the jury”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Saldano v. State
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.