Franks evidentiary hearing (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Franks evidentiary hearing in Texas

20 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2015 0 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Cates v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2003 · cited in 15 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2014
2 sentences

2009In Cates , the court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow defense witnesses to testify at a Franks evidentiary hearing after the defendant had made a substantial preliminary showing of falsity and the State had been permitted to offer testimony as to the search warrant affidavit's accuracy. 120 S.W.3d at 355, 359 .

2009In Cates, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow defense witnesses to testify at a Franks evidentiary hearing after the defendant had made a substantial preliminary showing of falsity and the State had been permitted to offer testimony as to the search warrant affidavit’s accuracy. 120 S.W.3d at 355, 359 .

815
Jordan v. Stategreen
texapp · 2008 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009Franks , 438 U.S. at 155-56 ; Harris , 227 S.W.3d at 85 ; Jordan v. State , 271 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2008, no pet.).

2009Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 ; Harris, 227 S.W.3d at 85 ; Jordan v. State, 271 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.).

22
Illinois v. Gatesgreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006In order to obtain a Franks evidentiary hearing, the defendant must: "(1) allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant, specifically pointing out the portion of the affidavit claimed to be false; (2) accompany these allegations with an offer of proof stating the supporting reasons; and (3) show that when the portion of the affidavit alleged to be false is excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to support the issuance of the warrant." Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex.Cr.App.2003). [13] See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236

2006In order to obtain a Franks evidentiary hearing, the defendant must: "(1) allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant, specifically pointing out the portion of the affidavit claimed to be false; (2) accompany these allegations with an offer of proof stating the supporting reasons; and (3) show that when the portion of the affidavit alleged to be false is excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to support the issuance of the warrant." Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex.Cr.App.2003). [13] See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236

22
Swearingen v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (magistrate’s determination of whether affidavit reflects a "substantial basis” for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of a crime entitled to great deference); Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808, 811 (Tex.Cr.App.2004) (magistrate’s probable cause determination subject to deferential standard of appellate review). .

2006In order to obtain a Franks evidentiary hearing, the defendant must: "(1) allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant, specifically pointing out the portion of the affidavit claimed to be false; (2) accompany these allegations with an offer of proof stating the supporting reasons; and (3) show that when the portion of the affidavit alleged to be false is excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to support the issuance of the warrant." Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex.Cr.App.2003). [13] See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236

22
Franks v. Delawaregreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2011
2 sentences

2003Thus, if a defendant has made a substantial preliminary showing of deliberate falsity, the trial court is required to go behind the "four corners" of the affidavit in a Franks evidentiary hearing. 4. 438 U.S. 154 (1978). 5.

2003Thus, if a defendant has made a substantial preliminary showing of deliberate falsity, the trial court is required to go behind the "four corners” of the affidavit in a Franks evidentiary hearing. 4 . 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). 5 .

15
Rodriguez v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W. 3d 55 (Tex. Crim.

11
Ramsey v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Ramsey v. State, 579 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72 , 98 S.Ct. at 2684-85 ).

11
Johnson v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006PROC. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (criminal conviction should not be overturned for non-constitutional error if appellate court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect). [15] 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [16] Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Harris v. State green
texcrimapp · 2007
2 sentences

2014Harris v. State, 227 S.W.3d 83 , 85-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

2009In Harris, the court held that a defendant fails to preserve for appellate review a Franks claim under the Fourth Amendment when he does not make a substantial preliminary showing as required. 227 S.W.3d at 85-86 . 3 Once the defendant establishes the requisites of a substantial preliminary showing required to obtain a full Franks evidentiary hearing, he has the burden of establishing at that hearing the allegation of a falsehood or a reckless disregard for the truth by a preponderance of the evidence.

62009–2014
Apprendi v. New Jersey green
scotus · 2000
2 sentences

2006PROC. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (criminal conviction should not be overturned for non-constitutional error if appellate court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect). [15] 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [16] Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

2006PROC. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (criminal conviction should not be overturned for non-constitutional error if appellate court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect). [15] 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [16] Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

12006–2006
Ring v. Arizona green
scotus · 2002
2 sentences

2006PROC. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (criminal conviction should not be overturned for non-constitutional error if appellate court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect). [15] 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [16] Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

2006PROC. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (criminal conviction should not be overturned for non-constitutional error if appellate court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect). [15] 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [16] Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

12006–2006
Jurek v. Texas red
scotus · 1976
2 sentences

2006PROC. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (criminal conviction should not be overturned for non-constitutional error if appellate court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect). [15] 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [16] Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

2006PROC. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (criminal conviction should not be overturned for non-constitutional error if appellate court has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect). [15] 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976). [16] Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

12006–2006

Where else courts name it

TX 20 (2003–2015) IL 7 (1983–2020) WA 4 (2015–2021) HI 3 (1995–2021) NJ 3 (1988–2019) ID 2 (2004–2025) DE 2 (2016–2018) KS 2 (1997–2023)

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