State v. Fire’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule stated by the majority is that, where the court refuses a challenge for cause, and the party challenging removes the juror by a peremptory challenge and exhausts all his peremptory challenges, while it is error it will not be considered prejudicial unless the record discloses that some juror was kept upon the panel who was not fair and impartial. The theory upon which this rule is based is that twelve jurors having been passed for cause, and nothing being brought out on their examination to tend to show their unfitness as jurors, it must be presumed that they were fair and impartial. But we think that the majority rule entirely overlooks at least one of the purposes of the peremptory challenges allowed by law. If it be conceded that the purpose of the peremptory challenge is merely to allow a juror to be removed when the court has refused to allow him to be excused for cause actually shown, or to remove those who have shown by their answers that they are probably prejudiced or unfair jurors, then the majority rule should govern. However, it seems to us that the right to peremptory challenges is given to enable parties to excuse from the jury those whom they may, for any reason, feel would not make fair jurors even though nothing is disclosed on the voir dire. [2]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fire

2. “[The juror] did not specifically indicate that he thought [Fire] was a baby raper, that anyone that was guilty of that would be, but not necessarily that that was the case. He did indicate that he would still follow the law. And I think that despite what he may have said, he has indicated that he would be able to follow the law and he would be able to follow the instructions that the Court gives in determining guilt or innocence. So I will not excuse him for cause at this time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fire

3. “Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 778 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (quoting State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wash.2d 12, 26 , 482 P.2d 775 (1971)). Appellate courts defer to the judgment of the trial judge regarding whether a particular juror is able to be fair and impartial because the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fire