Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 962 SW2D 544 - Henderson v. State

Henderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
4
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Wesbrook v. State (2000), Johnson v. State (2002)

2 federal appellate · 64 state decisions

520199720002010decided

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 · Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Ornelas v. United States

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.

  1. “(1) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Children are deemed to warrant protection because of their inexperience, lack of social and intellectual development, moral innocence, and vulnerability.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Early in the interview, Agent Napier told [Henderson] that she was at a crossroads, that she could determine which path to take, and that she could tell her story or let the justice system take its course. Later in the interview, [Henderson] offered to tell everything she knew in exchange for staying in Missouri. In response, Napier asked questions such as: “What do you mean?” ‘What’s everything?” Napier never promised appellant that she could stay in Missouri, and in fact, told her that he was not in a position to make any bargains, deals, or promises. He also told her that the people in a position to make a deal would want to have a basis for making their decision. Later, through leading questions, Napier elicited from [Henderson] a confession that she killed the baby. He asked [Henderson], “When you say the whole thing, are you talking about that Brandon is dead, that you know where the body’s located, that it was an accident, that you’re sorry?” [Henderson] responded by nodding her head. Later Napier stated, “Brandon’s dead. It was an accident.” To this statement, [Henderson] replied, ‘Yes.” Napier asked, “Did you bury him[?]” [Henderson] responded, “Of course, I did. He’s just a baby.” Subsequent interrogation led to [Henderson’s] statement that she had buried Brandon in a wooded area near Waco. At that point, Napier asked [Henderson] to draw a map so that the authorities could find Brandon. Napier talked about Brandon’s parents and talked about their need to “put closur”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.