Spencer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · Purkett v. Elem · 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil · Melbourne v. State
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“MR. FIGUEROA [defense counsel]: Judge, [number 16], I believe was an African American female. This is the second African American stricken by the state for peremptory. I would ask for a race-neutral reason. THE COURT: Is that as to number 16? MR. FIGUEROA: It is. THE COURT: There's an objection. The burden shifts to the state. MR. FALCONE [assistant state attorney]: During individual voir dire at the bench, juror [16] indicated that she had been arrested for battery, battery, domestic violence, specifically. THE COURT: Just a moment. Let me look at my notes. MR. FIGUEROA: Judge, that is correct. THE COURT: You may respond. MR. FIGUEROA: I have no response. THE COURT: The state has indicated a race-neutral reason. The court finds no pretext in the exercise of this peremptory challenge. The objection to the exercise of a peremptory as to number 16 is overruled. .... THE COURT: State exercises a peremptory as to number 11. MR. FIGUEROA: Judge, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I would ask for a race-neutral reason, him being an African American male. THE COURT: Burden shifts. Go ahead. MR. FALCONE: During individual voir dire, the juror did indicate that he had a friend who was arrested for breaking and entering, B and E. MR. FIGUEROA: He also indicated that he had a friend that was killed, and I would also say he did say numerous times he could be fair and impartial. THE COURT: Okay. I note that the standard here is whether or not the state has indicated a race-neutral reason, whethe”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Powers v. Ohio , 499 U.S. 400 , 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed. 2d 411 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a venireperson has an equal protection right "not to be excluded from [a petit jury] on account of race." The court was quite aware that a venireperson would have limited ability to enforce this right. Id. at 413-14 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 . It held that a criminal defendant has standing to raise this third-party equal protection claim for a venireperson. Id. at 415 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 . The U.S. Supreme Court does not seem to have expected the trial judge to play the role of a venireperson's attorney. Since the Florida Supreme Court decided Hayes , parties now argue on appeal that Melbourne requires the trial court to demonstrate the circumstances of "genuineness" when the parties have not made arguments on the record as to those circumstances. ... ... It is true that the trial courts must make the three decisions required by Melbourne if requested, but the parties are not entitled to sit back and have the court go through this process for them. It simply is not the job of the trial court to develop the circumstances that may weigh against the genuineness of a proposed peremptory challenge. The trial court has an obligation to maintain its neutrality. See, e.g., Livingston v. State , 441 So.2d 1083 , 1086 (Fla. 1983) ("Every litigant, including the State in criminal cases, is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge," and a court has the dut”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When an error results in this type of drastic relief, it is important that litigants not be allowed to trap or trick the trial judge into reversible error by failing to make objections or by making inadequate objections. Such an error should not be a matter of inadvertence. The trial court needs a full and fair opportunity to correct or avoid an error in the procedure before the jury is sworn.”
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.