State v. LaMere’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

104 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) such an error precedes the presentation of any evidence to the jury, and cannot be analyzed as mere trial error without resorting to speculation; (2) such an error, because it precedes the trial process, cannot be quantita tively assessed for its prejudicial impact relative to the evidence introduced at trial; (3) such an error, being other than an error in the trial process, affects the very framework within which the trial proceeds; and (4) the impartiality of .the jury goes to the very integrity of our justice system, and the right to an impartial jury is so essential to our conception of a fair trial that its violation cannot be considered harmless error.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bird · Robbins v. State

2. “The underlying “purpose of the jury selection statutes is to provide random selection of jurors from the entire panel or array,...thus securing a fair and impartial jury.” [citations omitted.] In short, the objective procedures established by the Montana legislature for the random selection of jurors are intended to protect a criminal defendant’s fundamental right to a fair and impartial jury, as guaranteed by Article II, Sections 24 and 26 of the Montana Constitution and by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments the United States Constitution. We construe this substantial compliance standard as being designed to protect a defendant’s fundamental right to an impartial jury, primarily, by encouraging reasonably strict compliance with statutory procedures intended to implement, and thereby secure the fair cross section guarantee of the Sixth Amendment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller v. Young · State v. Good

3. “LaMere presented statistics establishing significant disparity in telephone service to residents above and below the poverty line; the evidence also established that the disparity was significantly enhanced when the representative numbers of Anglo Americans and Native Americans in the community were factored in. Moreover, LaMere introduced a statistician’s affidavit opining, inter alia, that the telephonic summoning procedure used in Cascade County resulted in below-poverty households being seven times more likely to be excluded from jury participation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Torgerson