Trevino v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The [accomplice witness] rule simply reflects a legislative determination that accomplice testimony that implicates another should be viewed with some level of caution. Under the rule it is not necessary for the non-accomplice evidence to be sufficient in itself to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor is it necessary for the non-accomplice evidence to directly link the accused to the commission of the offense. All that is required is that there be some non-accomplice evidence which tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offense alleged in the indictment.... [N]o precise rule can be formulated as to the amount of evidence that is required to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice witness.”

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

2. “In presenting his claim to the trial court, appellant’s counsel admitted that the State had informed him before jury selection of its continuing DNA tests on the victim’s clothing. Counsel admitted that since none of the DNA testing had been incriminating, he decided to “let it go.” Counsel’s decision not to query the venire regarding DNA evidence was a strategic decision and the product of neither prosecutorial misconduct nor trial court error. Under these facts, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion. Appellant’s first point of error is overruled.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 678 F. Supp. 2d 445 - Trevino v. Thaler

3. “The State asserts that before jury selection, it had informed appellant that though they had not discovered any incriminating DNA evidence, DNA testing was being conducted and that results had at that point not been prejudicial. But according to the State, it also informed appellant that it was conducting further testing on an article of the victim’s clothing. That appellant had this information is confirmed by his own arguments when he moved for mistrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 678 F. Supp. 2d 445 - Trevino v. Thaler