King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Hunt v. State (1990), Foster v. State (1985)
5 federal appellate · 34 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 · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · 66 Cal. 2d 524 - People v. Bandhauer · Castaldi v. United States · Mathis v. New Jersey
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he mere statement by a juror of his belief that the criminal law concerning marijuana ought to be modified, without more, does not indicate that the juror is biased, prejudiced or unqualified to be a juror in a prosecution for possession and distribution of marijuana. Many people may personally believe that a particular law is undesirable or should be changed, yet the existence of such a belief does not necessarily mean that the holder would refuse or be unable to apply the existing law to the facts of the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is common knowledge that a significant segment of our society believes, as a matter of public policy, that the criminal laws relating to marijuana should be modified in one way or another,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Thomas · Landon v. Zorn“In this case, the trial court excluded the entire class of prospective jurors who believed that the marijuana laws should be modified, irrespective of any other consideration peculiar to those jurors. The court stated that a juror who wanted the law concerning “simple possession” of marijuana changed “is not a competent juror.” The court also ruled: “If someone doesn’t believe that law as it now exists, they certainly are not qualified as jurors.” By so deciding, the trial court excluded from the panel a significant part of the community. We hold that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding any juror who expressed a personal belief that the law concerning marijuana should be changed without inquiring whether or not that belief would prevent the juror from fairly and impartially deciding the case in accordance with existing law in the evidence presented.”
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.