Shack v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2005 · most notably Baum v. State (1976), Porter v. State (1979)
75 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Bumper v. North Carolina · United States v. Ewell · Pollard v. United States · Smith 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(C) Defendant discharged. No person shall be held on recognizance or otherwise to answer a criminal charge for a period in aggregate embracing more than one year from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge, whichever is later; except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar; Provided, however, That in the last-mentioned circumstance, the prosecuting attorney shall file a timely motion for continuance as under subdivision (A) of this rule. Any defendant so held shall, on motion, be discharged.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Strict random selection is not a requirement. The law requires that the commissioners use some discretion in the selection process. See Harrison v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 147 , 106 N.E.2d 912 . The major requirement should be that the system of selection is not arbitrary, see Harrison, supra, and complete impartiality should be sought. See, State v. Bass (1936), 210 Ind. 181 , 1 N.E.2d 927 . Thus, completely random selection is not a requirement as long as the system is impartial and not arbitrary. We should note, however, that the more random the selection process, the less will be the appearance of arbitrariness. Such a goal should be sought.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hardy v. State““. . . In State v. Hawley (1971), [256] Ind. [244], 268 N.E.2d 80 , this Court held that where a defendant filed a motion for severance and a separate trial, he was not entitled to credit for delaying time caused by the motion, and the six-month rule for discharge began to run anew from the date the motion for severance was denied. . . .” 288 N.E.2d 155, at 160 .”
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.