State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1991 · most notably State v. Mayberry (1991), State v. Wilson (1976)
27 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 · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Federal Trade Commission v. Textile & Apparel Group · State v. McCorgary · State v. Steward
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant’s next point on appeal arises from the overruling of defendant’s motion for mistrial made after the jury had been selected and sworn to try the case. The prosecution in exercising its peremptory challenges (K.S.A. 22-3412) had struck the last black member from the panel of prospective jurors. It is argued that by excluding all members of the Negro race from the jury the prosecution denied the defendant a fair trial. “This argument is not directed to the initial method by which the entire array was selected for jury service. The attack is directed against the time honored statutory provision for peremptory challenges. The defendant questions the motives of the prosecution in exercising its peremptory challenges. “It has been observed in connection with a challenge to the entire array that: “ ‘Although the law requires that a jury panel be truly representative of a cross-section of the community in which a defendant is to be tried, a Negro defendant in a criminal case is not constitutionally entitled to be tried by a jury on which there is a member, or members, of his race, and he is entitled to relief only upon proof presented by him which discloses a purposeful discrimination to exclude members of a class from the jury panel.’ (State v. Clift, 202 Kan. 512 , Syl. ¶ 4, 449 P.2d 1006 , cert. den. 396 U.S. 910 , 24 L.Ed.2d 186 , 90 S.Ct. 225 .) “It has also been held when challenge is made to the entire array that systematic or purposeful exclusion of members of a par”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stewart · State v. Sanders
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.