Baker v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.2d 779 · 1942
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Rasmussen Drilling, Inc., a Colorado Corporation Licensed to Do Business in Wyoming v. Kerr-Mcgee Nuclear Corporation and Kerr-Mcgee Corporation (1978), United States v. Hall (1976)
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Mooney v. Holohan · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Ball v. United States · Patton v. United States
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Djeeply embedded in the right to a fair and impartial trial is the requirement that the jury of twelve men, chosen to sit in judgement, shall have no fixed opinion concerning the guflt or innocence of the one on trial, and that their ultimate verdict shall be based upon the facts as they are submitted to them by the court, under its instructions and superintendence. Anything less is a farce and a travesty upon justice.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no right more sacred to our institutions of government than the right to a public trial by a fair and impartial jury; no wrong more grievous than its denial, and no greater duty is enjoined upon the courts than to preserve that right untarnished and undefiled. The denial of a fair and impartial trial, as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, is also a denial of due process, demanded by the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the failure to strictly observe these constitutional safeguards renders a trial and conviction for a criminal offense illegal and void and redress there for is within the ambit of habeas corpus.” 129 F.2d at 781 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lane v. Warden · Durham v. Cox““ * * * we must not permit the integrity of the jury to be assailed by mere suspicion and surmise; it is presumed that the jury will be true to their oath and conscientiously observe the instructions and admonitions of the court.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.