Barajas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) are jurors preconditioned to accept scientific evidence as conclusive proof of guilt based on television shows and forensic science experts? (2) what factors would be important to you in making your sentencing decision? (3) do you have any bias against any of the law upon which the defendant is entitled to rely? (4) does anyone fit under any of the reasons to challenge for cause under article 35.16 of the code of criminal procedure? (5) is anyone related by the third degree of consanguinity to the victim or prosecutors in the case? (6) does anyone if they have a bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to this case upon which the defendant is entitled to rely on as a defense? As to mitigation at the punishment phase? (7) is anyone influenced in any way by the fact Smita is from India? (8) does anyone have a bias or prejudice in favor of the State because a child was injured and died? (9) has anyone formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence based on what they have heard? Give Smita the benefit of the doubt during deliberations based on defense counsel asking that question? (10) why would an innocent person not testify on their own behalf? (11) has anyone previously worked in the district attorney’s office or a police department? (12) has anyone been the "victim of a crime and would the way you were treated by the district attorney’s office or police affect your decision? (13) counsel wanted to individually ask what each juror’s personal belief of what is a reas”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jacobs v. State · Quezada v. State

2. “Of course, many questions in voir dire are not commitment questions and are not covered by this opinion. For example, the question, “[I]f the victim is a nun, could [the prospective juror] be fair and impartial?” does not ask the prospective juror to resolve or refrain from resolving any issue. A juror could be “fair” and still take into account the victim’s status as a nun where that status is logically relevant to the issues at trial or fail to do so if the juror perceived that the victim’s status as a nun should not be controlling.”

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

3. “If a venire member stated that she would resolve the appellant’s guilt on the basis of the victim’s age, that venire member would be challengeable for cause. But that is not the question that the appellant asked. The trial court may, within its discretion, require that parties phrase questions in a way that is precise enough to glean relevant information from the venire member’s answer.”

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