Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 Tex. Crim. 62 - Wolfe v. State

147 Tex. Crim. 62 - Wolfe v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
5
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Johnson v. State (2001), O'BRYAN v. State (1979)

61 state decisions

23019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lewis v. United States · 89 Tex. Crim. 199 - Kerley v. State · 95 Tex. Crim. 311 - Benson v. State · Monk v. State · Departamento de la Familia v. Gotay Gotay

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

  1. “It is the privilege of accused to exclude from service one whom, in his judgment is unacceptable to him. In conferring it, the law gives effect to the natural impulse to eliminate from the jury list not only persons who are rendered incompetent for some of the disqualifying causes named in the statute, but persons, who, by reason of politics, religion, environment, association, or appearance, or by reason of the want of information with reference to them, the accused may object to their service upon the jury to which the disposition of his life or liberty is submitted. In other words, the law fixes the number of challenges and confers upon the accused the right to arbitrarily exercise them. This right haying been denied the appellant in the instant case, he having exercised all of the challenges the court would permit him to use, and having been forced to try his case before jurors who were objectionable and whom he sought to challenge peremptorily, the verdict of conviction rendered by the jury so selected cannot, we think, with due respect to the law, be held to reflect the result of a fair trial by an impartial jury, which it is the design of our law shall be given to those accused of crime.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.