State v. Drake’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the state excluded peremptorily eight out of the 10 eligible African-American jurors called for examination after the court excused seven other African-American jurors for cause. As a result, and even accounting for the state’s selection of two African-American jurors for the panel, one of whom the defendant then struck, Caucasian jurors were significantly overrepresented on the panel in comparison to their number in the overall tally of jurors called for examination, and African-American jurors were grossly underrepresented. These circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference of discriminatory purpose, although they might not support a finding that more probably than not race played a role in the state’s exercise of its peremptory challenges. Johnson expressly cautioned that “[t]he Batson framework is designed to produce actual answers to suspicions |15and inferences that discrimination may have infected the jury selection process.... The inherent uncertainty present in inquiries of discriminatory purpose counsels against engaging in needless and imperfect speculation when a direct answer can be obtained by asking a simple question.” Johnson, 545 U.S. at 172 , 125 S.Ct. at 2418 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 201 So. 3d 400 - State v. Broussard · 64 So. 3d 330 - State v. Holand

2. “The trial court found that defendant had failed to satisfy the first step in the three-part test of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) because he did not make a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose. However, the Supreme Court “did not intend the first step to be so onerous that a defendant would have to persuade the judge-on the basis of all the facts, some of which are impossible for the defendant to know with certainty-that the challenge was more likely than not the product of purposeful discrimination.” Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170 , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2417 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005). A defendant “satisfies the requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 64 So. 3d 330 - State v. Holand