State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 60 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A defendant is not entitled to a jury which is composed of, with material precision, the exact proportion of his race as exists in the general population. All that is required is a jury selected by a process where the members of his race are not systematically excluded.” State v. Taylor, 109 Ariz. 267, 272 , 508 P.2d 731, 736 (1973).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Watson · State v. Gretzler

2. “1. Was the jury constitutionally infirm because of the exclusion of jurors between the ages of 18 and 21 when at the same time individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 were eligible voters under the statutes of the United States ? 2. Where only two out of 125 jurors called on the panel are negroes, in a community, in which the percentage of negroes is 3.4%, has there been a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in the selection of the jury panels? 3. Is it improper and reversible error to exclude a juror for alleged reasons of health and to substitute an alternate juror without allowing counsel an opportunity to inquire as to the reasons for the substitution? 4. Is it reversible error to bar and prohibit cross-examination of a material witness as to the witness’ previous false testimony under oath ? 5. Is it reversible error to permit cross-examination of a material witness as to errors possibly revealing motives for false testimony against one of the defendants ? 6. Is it reversible error to refuse to allow cross-examination of the witness as to a description given by that witness immediately after the crime? 7. Were the pictures of the victim unduly inflammatory to the point of necessitating reversal? 8. Was it reversible error to refuse to give defendant’s requested instructions as to the unreliability of eye-witness testimony ? 9. Was it reversible error to refuse to give defendant’s requested instructions on the State’s failure to call a witness as being evidence”

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

3. “"* * * It is asserted by defendant that where a substantial body of individuals, those 18 years old, have been by class excluded from prospective jury duty, a prima facie showing of discrimination has been made. We do not agree. The jury list used in the present case was lawfully selected even though at the time the jury list was compiled 18 year olds were excluded. Periodic (6 month) updating is proper and not prejudicial to those voters, including young adults, who have qualified to vote in the interim. United States v. Kuhn, 441 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1971). * * * "We find no intentional, arbitrary or systematic discrimination against 18 to 21 year olds from serving on the jury at this time and the fact that there was an understandable delay in implementing the requirement that 18 year olds and over be placed on the voter registration list did not invalidate a jury list taken from the voter roles prior to the time voters 18 to 21 were allowed to register." State v. Taylor, 109 Ariz. 267, 271 , 508 P.2d 731, 735 (1973).”

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