green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.3 score
“the erroneous excusing of a veniremember will call for reversal only if the record shows that the error deprived the defendant of a lawfully constituted jury”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Smith v. State
the erroneous excusing of a veniremember will call for reversal only if the record shows that the error deprived the defendant of a lawfully constituted jury
discussed
Cited "see"
King v. Rivas
See Amati v. Woodstock, 176 F.3d 952, 957-59 (7th Cir.) (Posner, J.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 985 , 120 S.Ct. 445 , 145 L.Ed.2d 362 (1999); Lang v. Gates, 36 F.3d 73 , 75 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1017 , 115 S.Ct. 579 , 130 L.Ed.2d 494 (1994). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ford v. State
See Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)(Baird, J., dissenting)(the Court of Criminal Appeals may not interpret the harmless error rule in a way that exceeds the Court's rule making authority), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 985 , 120 S.Ct. 444 , 145 L.Ed.2d 362 (1999). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gould
See Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Herbert, 116 U.S. 642 , 646, 6 S.Ct. 590 , 29 L.Ed. 755 (1886) ; Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148 , 1176 (10th Cir.2012) ; United States v. Lindsey, 634 F.3d 541 , 553-54 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 1000 , 131 S.Ct. 2475 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1232 (2011) ; United States v. Perez, 387 F.3d 201 , 207-208 (2d Cir.2004) ; United States v. Brooks, 175 F.3d 605 , 606 (8th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1119 , 120 S.Ct. 941 , 145 L.Ed.2d 818 (2000) ; United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 11 F.3d 1218 , 1222 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1129 , 114 S.Ct. 2138 ,…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Feldman v. State
Art. 35.16(a)(9); see also Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied 528 U.S. 985 , 120 S.Ct. 444 , 145 L.Ed.2d 362 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ripkowski v. State
On the other hand, if it is discovered that a particular attorney procured the omission of an issue without a valid trial strategy, then that conduct can be made the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. [49] 26 S.W.3d 895, 896-899 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). [50] 962 S.W.2d 544, 560-563 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 978 , 119 S.Ct. 437 , 142 L.Ed.2d 357 (1998). [51] The rule provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Standefer v. State
(2×)
Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); see also Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 985 , 120 S.Ct. 444 , 145 L.Ed.2d 362 (1999); Martinez v. State, 763 S.W.2d 413 , 415 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).
In re Rivera
No. 99-535.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 8, 1999.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.