27 Wash. App. 834 - State v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · 93 Wash. 2d 823 - State v. Cunningham · 93 Wash. 2d 186 - State v. Stephens · 78 Wash. 2d 121 - State v. Golladay · 11 Wash. App. 583 - State v. Crudup
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the inflammatory or noninflammatory nature of the publicity; (2) the degree to which the publicity was circulated throughout the community; (3) the length of time elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the difficulty encountered in the selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity of prospective or trial jurors with the publicity and the resultant effect upon them; (6) the challenges exercised by the defendant in selecting the jury, both peremptory and for cause; (7) the connection of government officials with the release of publicity; (8) the severity of the charge; and (9) the size of the area from which the venire is drawn.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he jury may be allowed to separate if the court finds that good reason exists to believe that such would not jeopardize a fair trial.”
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.