State v. Madison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 14 district · 56 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Equal protection of the laws, as well as due process, is involved. Under the .state’s contention, while Schowgurow, a Buddhist, was held entitled to a new trial because he was indicted and tried by juries unconstitutionally selected, Madi•son, a member of the Apostolic faith, •could not object to his indictment by a grand jury selected in the same unconstitutional manner. The only difference between the two men, in this respect, is the nature of their religious beliefs. Discrimination because of opinions about religion is one of the classic examples of •denial of the equal protection of the laws. Niemotko v. State of Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 272-273 , 71 S.Ct. 325 , 95 L.Ed. 267 (1951) ; Juarez v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 303-304 , 277 S.W. 1091 (1925). If we were to uphold the State’s contention in this case, the effect would be that pending indictments against persons who believed in a Supreme Being could not be successfully challenged, while indictments .against others who do not have that belief would be dismissed. There would, in •effect, be an unconstitutional discrimina•tion in favor of nonbelievers as against believers. “The State points to the fact that a •decision in its favor in this case would materially reduce the number of indictments which must be rebrought. We made it clear in Schowgurow that the decision in that case, for the reasons of public policy in the administration of justice therein stated, with the exception noted, is to apply only prospectively. Ne”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 43 Ala. App. 326 - Philpot v. State · State v. Gorman

2. “"[0]nce it is established that the method of the grand jury’s selection is unconstitutional, any accused indicted by such a jury has the right to have the indictment dismissed. He has this right, not because of any individual prejudice to him but because, under the basic law of our land, all persons accused of crime have the right to be tried in accordance with the requirements of our legal system. "... Madison’s right to challenge his indictment ... rests upon the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and upon the law of the land provision of Article 23 [now Article 24] of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. When the law of the land has been made clear ... a person accused of a crime, to be entitled to due process, does not have to show that he would be injured if due process is lacking. The right to be tried in accordance with the law is the constitutional privilege of every man."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gorman · 2 Md. App. 1 - Loker v. State

3. “[T]he exclusionary practice resulting in the failure of the jury to represent a cross-section of the community is condemned by the [due process and equal protection clauses] [of the] Fourteenth Amendment”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Labat v. Bennett