State v. Monk’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
242 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 244 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Johnson (1979), State v. Barfield (1979)
242 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n · United States v. Mitchell · Boulden v. Holman · Johnson v. United States
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 244 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Counsel for both sides are entitled to argue to the jury the law and the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Conner, 244 N.C. 109 , 92 S.E. 2d 668 (1956) ; State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259 , 84 S.E. 2d 899 (1954) ; State v. Campo, 233 N.C. 79 , 62 S.E. 2d 500 (1950). Language may be used consistent with the facts in evidence to present each side of the case.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen there is an objection to such prohibited statements ... it is “the duty of the court not only to sustain objection to the prosecuting attorney’s improper and erroneous argument but also to instruct the jury that the argument was improper with prompt and explicit instructions to disregard it. [If] no proper curative instruction [is] given, the prejudicial effect of the argument requires a new trial.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Even so, when the mandates of Witherspoon are followed in the selection of other jurors, as here, "the erroneous allowance of an improper challenge for cause does not entitle the adverse party to a new trial, so long as only those who are competent and qualified to serve are actually empaneled upon the jury which tried his case." State v. Atkinson, 275 N.C. 288 , 167 S.E.2d 241 (1969), rev'd on other grounds, 403 U.S. 948 , 91 S.Ct. 2283 , 29 L.Ed.2d 859 (1971). A defendant has no "vested right to a particular juror." State v. Vann, 162 N.C. 534 , 77 S.E. 295 (1913). We adhere to this view. Accord, Bell v. Patterson, 402 F.2d 394 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 955 , 91 S.Ct. 2279 , 29 L.Ed.2d 865 (1971); State v. Conyers, 58 N.J. 123 , 275 A.2d 721 (1971). Unpersuasive decisions contra include Marion v. Beto, 434 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 906 , 91 S.Ct. 1372 , 28 L.Ed.2d 646 (1971); Woodards v. Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978 (6th Cir. 1970); People v. Washington, 71 Cal.2d 1170 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 5 , 459 P.2d 259 (1969). When no systematic exclusion is shown, defendant's right is only to reject a juror prejudiced against him; he has no right to select one prejudiced in his favor. State v. Washington, 283 N.C. 175 , 195 S.E.2d 534 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1132 , 94 S.Ct. 873 , 38 L.Ed.2d 757 (1974); State v. Peele, 274 N.C. 106 , 161 S.E.2d 568 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1042 , 89 S.Ct. 669 , 21 L.Ed.2d 590 (1969); State v. Vann, supra . Thus the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bernard
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.