witness sequestration rule in Texas

22 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2023 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (18)

Case	Followed	Cited
Russell v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2005 · cited in 8 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2021 2 sentences 2021“The purpose of placing witnesses under the rule is to prevent the testimony of one witness from influencing the testimony of another, consciously or not.” Russell, 155 S.W.3d at 179 ; Parks v. State, 463 S.W.3d 166, 174 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). 2015See Bryant, 282 S.W.3d at 161 (citing Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176, 181 (Tex. Crim.	5	8
Guerra v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1988 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–2015 2 sentences 2015See Bryant, 282 S.W.3d at 161 (citing Guerra v. State, 771 S.W.2d 453, 474 (Tex. Crim. 1997In Guerra v. State, 771 S.W.2d 453, 474-76 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 , 109 S.Ct. 3260 , 106 L.Ed.2d 606 (1989), the Court devised a two-tiered analysis of the trial court’s actions in situations where the witness sequestration rule 1 has been violated.	5	5
Taylor v. Stategreen texapp · 2005 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2015 2 sentences 2015App. 1988); Taylor v. State, 173 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2005, no pet.). 48 Linciciome, 3 S.W.3d at 646; Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 519 . 21 court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.”49 B. 2015App. 1988); Taylor v. State, 173 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2005, no pet.). 48 Linciciome, 3 S.W.3d at 646; Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 519 . 21 court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.”49 B.	4	4
Routier v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2003 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2015 2 sentences 2015Russell, 155 S.W.3d at 179 ; see Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554, 590 (Tex. Crim. 2007Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554, 590 (Tex. Crim.	3	3
Bryant v. Stategreen texapp · 2009 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See Bryant, 282 S.W.3d at 161 (citing Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176, 181 (Tex. Crim. 2015“The party claiming an exemption under the witness sequestration rule bears the burden of showing that the exemption applies.” Id. (citing White v. State, 958 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, no pet.)).	2	3
White v. Stategreen texapp · 1997 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015“The party claiming an exemption under the witness sequestration rule bears the burden of showing that the exemption applies.” Id. (citing White v. State, 958 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, no pet.)). 2015As we recently stated in Allen , “[a] con-clusory statement that the witness’ presence is ‘essential and necessary’ does not meet the burden to show that an exception under Rule 614 applies.” Id. (citing Bryant, 282 S.W.3d at 161 ).	2	3
Martinez v. Stategreen texapp · 2006 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See Martinez v. State, 186 S.W.3d 59, 65 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 50 (Tex. Crim. 2015Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 50 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Martinez v. State, 186 S.W.3d 59, 65 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. refd).	2	2
Bell v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See Martinez v. State, 186 S.W.3d 59, 65 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 50 (Tex. Crim. 2015Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 50 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Martinez v. State, 186 S.W.3d 59, 65 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. refd).	2	2
Lincicome v. Stategreen texapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015App. 1988); Taylor v. State, 173 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2005, no pet.). 48 Linciciome, 3 S.W.3d at 646; Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 519 . 21 court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.”49 B. 2015App. 1988); Taylor v. State, 173 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2005, no pet.). 48 Linciciome, 3 S.W.3d at 646; Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 519 . 21 court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.”49 B.	2	2
Moore v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Moore v. State, 882 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex. Crim.App.1994). 2015Moore v. State, 882 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex. Crim.	2	2
Wilson v. Stategreen texapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See Wilson , 179 S.W.3d at 249 (setting forth test); Taylor , 173 S.W.3d at 853 (appellant has burden on appeal to satisfy both prongs). 2009See Wilson, 179 S.W.3d at 249 (setting forth test); Taylor, 173 S.W.3d at 853 (appellant has burden on appeal to satisfy both prongs).	2	2
Felix Sandoval v. Stategreen texapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See Sandoval v State, 409 S.W.3d 259, 294 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.). 7 In seeking to de-emphasize this testimony, the majority simply writes that Cook objected to the entirety of Arwin’s testimony based on Rule 614 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, the witness sequestration rule, but fails to explain how such an objection could preserve any complaint that the witness was testifying about the child’s credibility after the trial court overruled the Rule 614 objection.	1	1
Kerry Dean Parks v. Stategreen texapp · 2015 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021“The purpose of placing witnesses under the rule is to prevent the testimony of one witness from influencing the testimony of another, consciously or not.” Russell, 155 S.W.3d at 179 ; Parks v. State, 463 S.W.3d 166, 174 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.).	1	1
Webb v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015Webb v. State, 766 S.W.2d 236, 244-245 (Tex. Crim.	1	1
Dennis Eugene Allen v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See Allen, 436 S.W.3d at 824-25 (holding error in exempting expert from the Rule was harmless in light of entire *176 trial record).	1	1
Martinez v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015Notwithstanding appellant’s concern, which is not addressed by the Rule, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the girls’ former counselor to be present in the courtroom to hear their testimony for the purpose of later providing her expert opinion to explain 4 certain behaviors the girls might exhibit when they testified. “‘The trial court is vested with discretion and may permit expert witnesses to be exempt from the rule in order that they may hear other witnesses testify and then base their opinion on such testimony.’” Martinez v. State, 867 S.W.2d 30, 40 (Te	1	1
Potter v. Stategreen texapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009Guerra v. State, 771 S.W.2d 453, 474 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Taylor v. State, 173 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Potter v. State, 74 S.W.3d 105, 110 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.).	1	1
Washington v. Texasgreen scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962). 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Batson v. Kentucky green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2023Cook argues in his remaining grounds (1) that the jury’s verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, (2) that the trial court should have ruled on his Batson2 challenge, (3) that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve his Batson challenge, and (4) that the trial court erred by permitting a witness to testify in violation of Rule 614, the witness sequestration rule. 1 Cook also appealed from two additional convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child in companion cause numbers 06-20-00001-CR and 06-20-00003-CR. 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1 2023We find (1) that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict of guilt, (2) that, while Cook’s counsel waived his Batson challenge, harm from the alleged ineffective assistance 1 In companion cause numbers 06-20-00002-CR and 06-20-00003-CR, Cook also appeals from two other convictions for aggravated sexual assault of the same child. 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 2 of counsel is not shown, and (3) that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Cook’s Rule 614 objection.	2	2023–2023
Phelps v. State green texapp · 1999 2 sentences 2015App. 1988); Taylor v. State, 173 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2005, no pet.). 48 Linciciome, 3 S.W.3d at 646; Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 519 . 21 court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.”49 B. 2015App. 1988); Taylor v. State, 173 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2005, no pet.). 48 Linciciome, 3 S.W.3d at 646; Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 519 . 21 court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence if it was within the “zone of reasonable disagreement.”49 B.	2	2015–2015
Pervez v. United States green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 1997In Guerra v. State, 771 S.W.2d 453, 474-76 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 , 109 S.Ct. 3260 , 106 L.Ed.2d 606 (1989), the Court devised a two-tiered analysis of the trial court’s actions in situations where the witness sequestration rule 1 has been violated. 1997In Guerra v. State, 771 S.W.2d 453, 474-76 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 , 109 S.Ct. 3260 , 106 L.Ed.2d 606 (1989), the Court devised a two-tiered analysis of the trial court’s actions in situations where the witness sequestration rule 1 has been violated.	1	1997–1997
Holder v. United States green scotus · 1893 2 sentences 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962). 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962).	1	1979–1979
Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bollong. Three Cases green scotus · 1893 2 sentences 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962). 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962).	1	1979–1979
United States v. Carl D. Schaefer green ca7 · 1962 2 sentences 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962). 1979See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); cf. Holder v. U. S., 150 U.S. 91 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893); U. S. v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962).	1	1979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.021 (6)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 22 (1979–2023) MS 8 (1994–2010) FL 4 (1978–1996) AL 3 (1992–2017) TN 2 (1973–2000) MD 2 (1991–2000)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance