green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.5 score
“the mere fact of media attention and publicity do not, however, automatically establish prejudice.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
in Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. Abelino Reyna, Relator v. Court of Appeals for the Tenth District
the mere fact of media attention and publicity do not, however, automatically establish prejudice.
cited
Cited "see"
Gonzales, Jose Iii
See/ Williams v- State, 897 S.W-2d 351 {Tex-CriM*App.^ cert, denied/ 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct.385, 133 L.Ed.2d 307 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Gonzales, Jose Iii
See, Williams v. State, 897 S.W.2d 351 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct. 385 , 133 L.Edi2d 307 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Salazar v. State
See Willingham v. State, 897 S.W.2d 351, 357 (Tex.Crim.App.), ce rt. denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct. 385 , 133 L.Ed.2d 307 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Jack North
See Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1513 (11th Cir.), reh’g denied, (1995)(en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct. 385 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Henry Eugene Hodges v. State
See Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1513 (11th Cir.), reh’g denied, (1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct. 385 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Sylvester Smith
See Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1513 (11th Cir. 1995), reh’g denied, (1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct. 385 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mills v. Singletary
See Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir.) (stating that we “inquire only to determine whether the error was of such magnitude as to deny fundamental fairness to the criminal trial.”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 946 (1995); McCoy, 953 F.2d at 1265 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Mills v. Singletary
See Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir.) (stating that we “inquire only to determine whether the error was of such magnitude as to deny fundamental fairness to the criminal trial.”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct. 385 , 133 L.Ed.2d 307 (1995); McCoy, 953 F.2d at 1265 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sims v. Singletary
Accord Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir.)(evidentiary ruling claims reviewed only to determine whether the error “was of such magnitude as to deny fundamental fairness”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S.Ct. 385 , 133 L.Ed.2d 307 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Romano
(2×)
See id. at 518-20, 551 S.E.2d at 134-35 ; see also Washington v. State, 653 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 1994) (per curiam) (concluding that once the samples were validly obtained in one case, the State was not prohibited from using them in another case), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 946 , 116 S. Ct. 387 , 133 L.
Lonewolf
v.
Orange County Social Services
v.
Orange County Social Services
No. 95-5710.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 30, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.