Lance v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because Georgia law entitles a defendant to a panel of 42 qualified jurors, the erroneous qualifying of a single juror for the panel from which the jury was struck requires reversal. [Cit.] “A juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty in every case” upon a conviction for murder is not qualified to serve. [Cit.] This is true because such a juror, instead of giving consideration to mitigating circumstances, begins the trial with an unwavering bias in favor of one of the sentences authorized under law, to the exclusion of the others. [Cit.] A potential juror’s views on capital punishment will disqualify the juror from service if the juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror’s duties as a juror in accordance with the instructions given the juror and the oath taken by the juror. [Cits.] In conducting our review, this Court views the voir dire of each juror as a whole and gives deference to the findings of the trial court concerning any juror’s possible bias. [Cit.]”

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

2. “[e]vidence of the defendant’s prior acts toward the victim, be it a prior assault, a quarrel, or a threat, is admissible when the defendant is accused of a criminal act against the victim, as the prior acts are evidence of the relationship between the victim and the defendant and may show the defendant’s motive, intent, and bent of mind in committing the act against the victim which results in the charges for which the defendant is being prosecuted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 263 Ga. App. 647 - Melson v. State

3. “); United States v. Maxwell, ... 920 F.2d 1028, 1033-1034 (II)(A) (D.C.Cir.1990) (holding that reference in a search warrant to certain crimes might be sufficiently narrowing but that reference to other crimes might leave the scope of the authorized search too broad). (Emphasis in original.) Lance v. State, supra at 21-22(19)(b), 560 S.E.2d 663 . Although Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1), 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927) states that”

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