Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2016
10 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 178th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Stanley v. Kemp · Benson v. State · Boozer v. State · Bustillos v. State · Arceneaux 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The amendment effectively instructed the jury to disregard counsel’s argument. ... It was like denying counsel the right to make a closing argument. That denial would certainly be reversible error. What happened here was worse. Instead of hearing no argument from defense counsel, jurors heard an argument, and then the judge told them the argument was wrong. When the judge gave the ... instruction, it must have seemed to the jury as if he was answering defense counsel’s oral argument with a written rebuttal. From then on, it was as if counsel’s opponent was not the prosecutor, but the judge. That denied appellant a fair trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Murray v. State · Garza v. State“After the argument begins no further charge shall be given to the jury unless required by the improper argument of counsel or the request of the jury, or unless the judge shall, in his discretion, permit the introduction of other testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Seals 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.