State v. Allred’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 85 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In this jurisdiction, a juror, who is related to the defendant by blood or marriage within the ninth degree of kinship, is properly rejected when challenged by the State for cause on that ground. . . . $ $ $ “We do not hold that a relationship within the ninth degree between a juror and a State’s witness, standing alone, is legal ground for challenge for cause. This is in accord with the weight of authority in other jurisdictions. Annotation, ‘Relationship to prosecutor or witness for prosecution as disqualifying juror in criminal case.’ 18 A.L.R. 875 ; 31 Am. Jur., Jury § 192; 50 C.J.S., Juries § 218(b) (1). Even so, where such relationship exists and is known and recognized by the juror, a defendant’s challenge for cause should be rejected only if it should appear clearly that, under the circumstances' of the particular case, the challenged juror would have no reason or disposition to favor his kinsman by giving added weight to his testimony or otherwise. ...””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lee · State v. Watson

2. ““In selecting the jury, the court, or any party to an action, civil or criminal, has the right to make inquiry as to the fitness and competency of any person to serve as a juror. G.S. 9-15(a). ‘The voir dire examination of jurors is a right secured to the defendant by the statutes and has a definite double purpose: First, to ascertain whether there exist grounds for challenge for cause; and, second, to enable counsel to exercise intelligently tbe peremptory challenges allowed by law.’ State v. Brooks, 57 Mont. 480 , 188 P. 942 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dawson · State v. Vinson

3. ““Where the court has refused to stand aside a juror challenged for cause, and the party has then peremptorily challenged him, in order to get the benefit of his exception he must exhaust his remaining peremptory challenges, and then challenge another juror peremptorily to show his dissatisfaction with the jury, and except to the refusal of the court to allow it.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Watson · State v. Hartman