Swope v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

171 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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Swain v. Alabama (1965), 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 18 L.Ed.2d 759 , the United States Supreme Court held that the peremptory system, which permits challenges exercised 'without a reason stated, without inquiry and without being subject to the court's control, might be used to excuse a person on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, occupation, or affiliations. 380 U.S. at 220 [ 85 S.Ct. at 835-836 ]. 'The function of the challenge is not only to eliminate extremes of partiality on both sides, but to assure the parties that the jurors before whom they try the case will decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them, and not otherwise.' 380 U.S. at 219 [ 85 S.Ct. at 835 ]. Although Alabama had a system of struck juries, the Swain holding specifically included the peremptory challenge system also." 263 at 156, 325 N.E.2d 193 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Finch v. State

2. ““The prosecutor’s statement of opinion must be considered in the context of the argument as a whole. In this instance, the prosecutor had presented his version of all the evidence and immediately explained the reason that he was convinced appellant was guilty: ‘The evidence presented here is so convincing.’ This statement adequately explained the source of the prosecutor’s opinion and dispelled the possibility of the jury’s assuming superior knowledge from the statement, ‘We are close to the situation,’ which otherwise would have been fatally improper. See also, Garrett v. State, (1973) [157] Ind. App. [426], 300 N.E.2d 696 ; Annot., 50 A.L.R.2d 766 (1956).” 325 N.E.2d at 196 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rufer v. State

3. “the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification. It is also relevant to consider those facts which, despite the absence of counsel, are disclosed concerning the conduct of the lineup.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nelson v. State