Bone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This is not a case of first impression on this subject in this state. A very similar matter was up for consideration and hearing nearly twenty years ago in the case of Ware v. State, 146 Ark. 321 , 225 S. W. 626 . In that case a similar question was presented to the trial court, as was before the circuit court of Pulaski County in this case. A motion was filed in that case alleging identical facts, with a similar prayer, that is to say, that Negroes had been excluded from jury sex-vice because of, axid on account of their race or color, and that this was a denial of equal protection of the law under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Coxxstitution of the United States. Ixi addition to the allegatioxx of these facts, the pleader in the Ware case offered by a statement in the motion to make proof of the facts alleged, but in that case, as in this, the court, without hearing any evidence, overruled the motion and put the defendants to trial. It may be said that in neither case does the record disclose what the proof would have been had the court not promptly overruled the motion filed. In the Ware case, supra, the court held that the challenge to the petit jury, made when the jury was called for the trial, was in due time. “One of the errors found in the Ware case was in the fact, as disclosed by the opinion, that it was error to overrule the motion without hearing evidence in support of its allegation. Of course, this implies that had the court heard this eviden”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. State

2. ““* * * If the objection made was tenable, and, no doubt, it was, it must have operated not to remove from the jury panel three members in whose places there might have been substituted qualified jurors of the Negro race, but this objection was to the entire panel, * * *. The removal of three from an improper venire upon which twenty-one improperly were left, certainly did not cure the error or meet the requirements of the substantive law of the land.” [Emphasis added]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. State