Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 98 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On January 15, 1995, at approximately 5:00 a.m., San Antonio police officer Fabian Dominguez went off duty and began driving home in his personal vehicle. Officer Dominguez lived in San Antonio with his wife and infant twin daughters. Officer Dominguez was a few blocks from home when he noticed suspicious activity at the residence of William Bra-den. Based on what Officer Dominguez observed, he took action to investigate what appeared to be a burglary in progress. When he pulled into the Braden driveway, blocking in the suspects’ vehicle, Paul Cameron, Pete Dowdle, and [Moore] were concluding their second trip to burglarize the Braden home. In his voluntary written statement to Detective James Holguin, [Moore] described the sequence of events leading up to the murder of Officer Dominguez. For some dumb reason we decided to go back to the house on Country Flower. We went in Pete’s grandmother’s car.... Pete drove. I was in the front passenger side of the car and Paul was in the backseat. Pete backed the car into the driveway. Pete stayed out in the car. We had accidently left the front door wide open the first time. Me and Paul went in through the front door. We didn’t have any problem with the dog. All three of us were wearing gloves again. We had left some guns and a compound bow were left (sic) from the first time. We got those things. Me and Paul decided to split form (sic) the inside. We walked outside and we saw a car passing by. The car stopped and I saw the reverse lig”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. Dretke

2. “Yes, there [are] some references in Defendant’s Motion for. New Trial [Exhibits] ... about the defendant’s IQ tests and where he stands. As to the references of mild retardation, ... the mild retardation was only an initial diagnosis, but once they got further into it, most of the records, especially in 2009, reflect that he — the diagnosis or the Axis II diagnosis under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is borderline intellectual functioning; that is above mild retardation. That is a — shows more intelligence. It is higher — results from a higher IQ. That in and of itself does not make somebody incompetent to stand trial.... This defendant wrote this Court numerous letters showing his — a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.... [A]fter the Motion to Suppress and the Motion to Quash was denied, this defendant filed a motion ... wanting his attorney to appeal, and then stating grounds on why he thought that I erred in making the — in overruling his motions.[ 17 ] This defendant was able to definitely assist in his trial. He showed a clear rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. This Court had no question as to his mental competency during any court proceedings .... [A]lso, the Court did notice when it read the Affidavit that the defendant is definitely competent, at least in his current attorney’s view, to file an affidavit....”

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

3. “(a) Either party may suggest by motion, or the trial court may suggest on its own motion, that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial. A motion suggesting that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial may be supported by affidavits setting out the facts on which the suggestion is made. (b) If evidence suggesting the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial comes to the attention of the court, the court on its own motion shall suggest that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial. (c) On suggestion that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial, the court shall determine by informal inquiry whether there is some evidence from any source that would support a finding that the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial. (d) If the court determines there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency, the court, except as provided by Article 46B.005(d), shall stay all other proceedings in the case.”

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