172 W. Va. 817 - State v. Beckett’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably 192 W. Va. 165 - State v. Derr (1994), 197 W. Va. 588 - State v. Miller (1996)
80 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 Smith v. Phillips · Ohio v. Gallagher · California v. Southland Royalty Co. · 161 W. Va. 517 - State v. Starkey · United States v. Caldwell
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A prospective juror’s consanguineal, marital or social relationship with an employee of a law enforcement agency does not operate as a per se disqualification for cause in a criminal case unless the law enforcement official is actively involved in the prosecution of the case. After establishing that such a relationship exists, a party has a right to obtain individual voir dire of the challenged juror to determine possible prejudice or bias arising from the relationship.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage““Jurors who on voir dire of the panel indicate possible prejudice should be excused, or should be questioned individually either by the court or by counsel to precisely determine whether they entertain bias or prejudice for or against either party, requiring their excuse.” Syllabus Point 3, State v. Pratt, [161] W.Va. [530], 244 S.E.2d 227 (1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] potential juror closely related by blood or marriage to either the prosecuting or defense attorneys involved in the case or to any member of their respective staffs or firms should automatically be disqualified.”
2 later decisions 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.