Contee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Can you, without bias or prejudice, pass your verdict in this case solely on the evidence produced from the witness stand without regard to the race, .creed or color of the defendant? “Do you feel that the fact that the defendant and -the prosecuting witness are of different races justifies (that .the case should be considered as different from one wherein the defendant and the prosecuting witness are of the same race? “Have you any prejudice against the Negro as a Negro that would induce you to return a verdict on less or slighter evidence than you would return a verdict of guilty against a white man under the same circumstances ? “Can you give the defendant, who is a Negro, as fair and impartial a trial as you could a white man, and give him the same advantage and protection as you would a white man upon the same evidence?””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Humphreys v. State · Bowie v. State

2. ““[T]he questions [on voir dire] should focus on issues particular to the defendant’s case so that biases directly related to the crime, the mtnesses, or the defendant may be uncovered. . . . ” * * * As we have seen, and so often reiterated, the single, primary, and overriding principle or purpose of voir dire is to ascertain “ ‘the existence of cause for disqualification[,]’ ” ... and this is accomplished through the pursuit of one of the two mandatory areas of inquiry, i.e., “an examination of a jury ... conducted strictly -within the right to discover the state of mind of the juror in respect to the matter in hand or any collateral matter reasonably liable to unduly influence him.’ ” ... We have been emphatic, even in civil cases, that “a party is entitled to a jury free of all disqualifying bias or prejudice without exception, and not merely a jury free of bias or prejudice of a general or abstract nature.” ... And, although we have entrusted the trial court with considerable discretion, we have admonished: “ ‘In the exercise of that discretion, the trial judge should adapt the questions to the needs of each case in the effort to secure an impartial jury. Any circumstances that may reasonably be regarded as rendering a person unfitted for jury service may be made the subject of questions and a challenge for cause. Accordingly an examination of a juror on his voir dire is proper as long as it is conducted within the right to discover the juror’s state of mind in respect to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 164 Md. App. 1 - Logan v. State

3. ““3. Whether any juror had ever ‘belonged to or been affiliated with any organization that had to do with segregation of the races?’ “4. Whether any juror believed ‘in segregation?’ “5. Whether any juror had ‘an opinion as to’ the impropriety of ‘people of the white race’ having ‘sexual intercourse with people of the colored race?’ and if so ‘whether the opinion was adverse to the race’ of the defendant, who was a Negro? “6. Whether any juror would ‘believe a woman of the white race over the statement of a man of the colored race?’ “8. Whether any juror had ‘ever been involved personally or through close family association in any criminal matter’ concerning ‘the prosecution of a colored man’ for an act of violence?””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hernandez v. Maryland