State v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As we point out in Lewis , the state’s burden in a case such as this is a difficult one, given jury dynamics and the possible influence even a single juror may have on the course of deliberations. Lewis , 2012-1021 [slip op. at 16] 112 So.3d at 805. As the court of appeal correctly noted, that burden is even more difficult when, as here, there is a split 10-2 jury verdict, and the replacement of one juror could have changed the outcome. Certainly, under some circumstances, the error in denying back strikes may be harmless. Such was the situation this court encountered in Taylor , where we found harmless error because the objectionable juror (who counsel did not identify until oral argument before this court) was a member of the fifth and final voir dire panel and counsel had the opportunity to challenge that juror before the swearing of the entire panel, but chose not to do so. Taylor , 1993-2201 at 25-26, 669 So.2d at 377-378 . In this case, by contrast, counsel made it very clear that he wished to peremptorily challenge juror McCall and would have done so but for an error he made with the seating chart. Thus, unlike Taylor , there is no question that defense counsel would have struck Mr. McCall and the composition of the jury would have been different if not for the district court’s error in prohibiting back strikes. The conviction in this case, as in Lewis , rests on witness credibility, as there is no physical evidence linking defendant to the crime. This fact, coupled wi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 So. 3d 946 - State v. Frith · 137 So. 3d 759 - State v. Ross

2. “Challenges; use of all available challenges Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, and specifically notwithstanding the provisions of Article 788, in the jury selection process, the state and the defendant may exercise all peremptory challenges available to each side, respectively, prior to the full complement of jurors being seated and before being sworn in by the court, and the state or the defendant may exercise any remaining peremptory challenge to one or more of the jurors previously accepted. No juror shall be sworn in until both parties agree on the jury composition or have exercised all challenges available to them, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. See also, State v. Lewis, 2012-1021 (La.3/19/13), 112 So.3d 796 , and State v. Patterson, 2012-2042 (La.3/19/13), 112 So.3d 806 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 So. 3d 153 - State v. Carter