Granados v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 63 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) whether the accused had a property or possessory interest in the place invaded; (2) whether he was legitimately in the place invaded; (3) whether he had complete dominion or control and the right to exclude others; (4) whether, prior to the intrusion, he took normal precautions customarily taken by those seeking privacy; (5) whether he put the place to some private use; and (6) whether his claim of privacy is consistent with historical notions of privacy.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore, Ex Parte Darron T. · Eric Christopher Gonzalez A/K/A Eric Christobal Gonzalez v. State

2. “[WJithout the evidentiary scaffolding provided by the Rules [of Evidence], all evidence is admissible, all evidence is relevant and the discretion wielded by the trial court is discretion incapable of abuse. * * * Under the majority's reading of the law, there is now nothing to prevent a trial court from deciding the merits of a suppression motion by relying exclusively on an unsworn police report or lab report. No longer must an expert witness at a suppression hearing be qualified. Tex.R. Evid. 702. Nor must the State continue to burden itself by marshaling witnesses who have personal knowledge of the events about which they are testifying. Tex.R. Evid. 602. Taking the majority's holding to its logical extreme, if the trial judge wished to save time, he could simply call himself as a witness and testify in support of the existence of probable cause by reading a newspaper account of the arrest into the record. Tex.R. Evid. 605.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ford v. State

3. “[p]re-trial motions on evidence issues should be granted only sparingly”). 8 . The State argues that the trial court improperly considered the records of the previous trials as virtual surrogates in reaching its evi-dentiary rulings because the records are hearsay, The State did not object when the trial court took judicial notice of those records, and in any event, the trial court is not bound by the Rules of Evidence, save for those involving privilege, in making its threshold evi-dentiary determinations. See Tex. R. Evid. 104(a) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Daniel Villegas