Rogers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1990
4 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 Speer v. State · Strahan v. Webb · Arnold v. State · Blaylack v. State · Patton v. State
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Frank Holt, Justice. Appellant was convicted by a jury of possessing stolen property and his punishment was assessed at five years imprisonment in the Department of Correction. We affirmed Rogers v. State, 250 Ark. 572, 466 S.W.2d 252 (1971). Pending his appeal, appellant was released to serve a federal prison sentence. Upon being paroled he was returned to the proper state authorities, pursuant to a detainer, to serve the previously imposed state sentence. At that time eleven of the twelve trial jurors asked the court by written petition to suspend the three year old judgment. These jurors personally appeared before the court in support of their petition. During this hearing, one of the jurors testified that she had consistently voted for the minimum sentence of one year. However, in the belief that a majority vote of the jurors controlled, she agreed to the five year verdict. The trial court refused to suspend the sentence. Thereupon the appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and set aside the jury verdict on the basis of this juror’s testimony. On appeal from a denial of that motion, appellant asserts that the jury verdict was invalid and a nullity because the juror’s testimony is uncontradicted that she agreed to the verdict in the belief that ‘she thought the majority ruled.’ Consequently, appellant argues the verdict was not unanimous. We cannot agree. “Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-2204 (Repl. 1964) reads: A juror cannot be examined to establish a ground for a new trial”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The statute plainly safeguards a jury verdict from impeachment by the testimony in the case at bar.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.