21 Md. App. 438 - Burkett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2013
24 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 Swain v. State of Alabama · Frazier v. United States · 18 Md. App. 291 - Bremer v. State · Johnson v. United States · Mills v. United States
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he grant of a new trial, where information inadvertently is withheld by a juror's failure to respond to voir dire inquiry, should be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge unless: "(a) actual prejudice to the accused is demonstrated, or "(b) the withheld information, in and of itself, gives rise to a reasonable belief that prejudice or bias by the juror against the accused is likely."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court does not look favorably upon raising questions of possible prejudice on the part of a juror after the jury has returned a conviction. In the absence of a showing of actual bias or an intentional withholding of the facts, there is little in the record from which the court can conclusively presume that the non-disclosure was obvious disqualification and inherent prejudice as a matter of law. Whether [the] juror ... had any preconceived enmity, prejudice, or bias against defendant is a matter of supposition. The fact that [the] juror ... might have been peremptorily challenged by defendant is not alone sufficient to reverse defendant’s convictions. Defendant is entitled to a fair trial, but not a perfect trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lovelace v. State“there is no showing of intentional denial or impairment of the right, either express or implied. On the contrary, the record makes crystal clear (a) that the juror's failure to respond was wholly inadvertent and (b) that the nature of the withheld information did not in and of itself rise above the purest speculation that it would indicate the juror's bias or prejudice against persons accused of crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State
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.