Gonzales v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Structural” error, as explained in Arizona v. Fulminante, is a "defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1265 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). The United States Supreme Court has found structural errors only in a very limited class of cases. Johnson v. U.S., 520 U.S. 461 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (a total deprivation of the right to counsel); Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) (lack of an impartial trial judge); Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) (unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of defendant's race); McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (the right to self-representation at trial); Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984) (the right to a public trial); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction to jury).”

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

2. “[ejxcept for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as “structural,” 5 no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, volun-tariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis. Of course, where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harm analysis, then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.... Hence it may be true that some kinds of errors (particularly jurisdictional ones) will never be harmless and that some other kinds of errors will rarely be harmless. But, appellate courts should not automatically foreclose the application of the harmless error test to certain categories of error. Where an error is shown to be harmless, it is not a ground for reversal, regardless of the category or label attached to that particular category.”

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

3. “We hold that error in the denial of a proper question which prevents the intelligent exercise of one's peremptory challenges constitutes an abuse of discretion and is not subject to a harm analysis[.]”

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