Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2026 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
House v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“An alleged disciplinary rule violation by the State does not require a reversal of a conviction unless the defendant can demonstrate ‘actual prejudice,’ i.e., that ‘the alleged disciplinary rule violation affected his substantial rights or deprived him of a fair trial.’” Id. at 564–65 (quoting House v. State, 947 S.W.2d 251, 252 (Tex. Crim. 2019See id. at 252–53; see also Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982) (“[T]he touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2019See id. at 252–53; see also Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982) (“[T]he touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2006After listing specific errors that are not subject to harm analysis, the Court set out the basis for finding that the listed errors were "structural"; "Each of these constitutional deprivations is a similar structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself." [2] Fulminante at 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 . 2006After listing specific errors that are not subject to harm analysis, the Court set out the basis for finding that the listed errors were “structural”; “Each of these constitutional deprivations is a similar structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” 2 Fulminante at 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Smith v. State , 859 S.W.2d 463, 464 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Mechanik
green
2 sentences2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 16 regarding who *506 was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanic 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, joined by Ju 2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 16 regarding who *506 was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanic 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, joined by Ju | 5 | 2008–2009 |
Jordan v. North Mississippi Rural Legal Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, (footnote: 16) regarding who was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 98 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, join 2009Similarly, when determining that a harm analysis focusing on the effect of the alleged error on the grand jury’s decision to indict was appropriate when considering a violation of Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,16 regarding who was properly present during a grand jury proceeding, Justice O’Connor, in a concurring opinion, wrote, “the logical focus of the harmless error inquiry is an examination of the influence of the error on the charging decision.” United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 76 , 106 S.Ct. 938, 944 , 98 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice | 4 | 2008–2009 |
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.
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.