Wilkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Colvin v. State (1984), 19 Md. App. 414 - Hopkins v. State (1973)
2 district · 36 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 Glasser v. United States · Brown v. Allen · Davis v. Alaska · Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. · Smith v. Texas
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article 51, § 1 incorporates the constitutional requirement that a defendant “is entitled to trial by (a) jury ... selected ... from a fair cross section” of the community in which he is being tried. Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128, 130 [, 61 S.Ct. 164, 165 , 85 L.Ed. 84 ] (1940). It is not necessary, of course, that the jury actually selected be representative of the community. Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 220 [, 66 S.Ct. 984, 985-86 , 90 L.Ed. 1181 ] (1946). However, it is a constitutional mandate that “the source of names of prospective jurors and the selection process be reasonably designed to procure a fair cross section.” The Supreme Court has summarized the basic constitutional prerequisite to be observed in jury selection: “The American tradition of trial by jury, ... necessarily contemplates an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community. Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128, 130 [, 61 S.Ct. 164, 165 , 85 L.Ed. 84 ]; Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 85 [, 62 S.Ct. 457, 471-72 , 86 L.Ed. 680 ]. This does not mean, of course, that every jury must contain representatives of all the economic, social, religious, racial, political and geographical groups of the community; frequently such complete representation would be impossible. But it does mean that prospective jurors shall be selected by court officials without systematic and intentional exclusion of any of these groups. ... Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., supra at 220[, 66 S.Ct. at 985-86 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[njeither the Constitution, nor the requirements of common sense, demand a scientifically perfect system for producing a representative cross section of the community. Nor has such a system been devised.... All that is required is a method reasonably designed to produce a jury representative of a cross section of the community. The objective selection of names at random from registration lists as provided by Art. 51 [of the Md. Code, now Cts. & Jud.Proc.Art, Title 8] fully satisfies this requirement and commends itself to an impartial jury system.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a litigant in a court of the State is entitled to trial by a petit jury and when a person accused of a criminal offense is presented to a grand jury, the jury shall be selected at random from a fair cross section of the citizens of the State who reside in the county where the court convenes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.