Mathis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. "`"To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. (Citations omitted.)"' "At the same time, the juror's assurances that he is equal to this task cannot be dispositive of the accused's rights, and it remains open to the defendant to demonstrate "the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality." "Recently the Supreme Court affirmed the principles expressed in Murphy . "`Petitioner's argument that the extensive coverage by the media denied him a fair trial rests almost entirely upon the quantum of publicity which the events received. He has directed us to no specific portions of the record, in particular the voir dire examination of the jurors, which would require a finding of constitutional unfairness as to the method of jury selection or as to the character of the jurors actually selected. But under Murphy , extensive knowledge in the community of neither the crimes nor the putative criminal is sufficient by itself to render a trial constitutionally unfair. Petitioner in this case has simply shown that the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 So. 2d 1204 - Lopez v. State

2. “"Therefore, where, as here, there has been no showing of any actual prejudice nor any showing that the pre-trial publicity (although admittedly extensive and widespread) was anything other than `factual,' `truthful,' `objective,' and `reasonably free from any calls for action based upon emotional subjective judgments' (Mathis v. State [1973] 52 Ala. App. 674 , 296 So.2d 760 , and Mathis v. State [1973] 52 Ala. App. 668 , 296 So.2d 755 ), I am unwilling to presume that the defendant was prejudiced."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 380 So. 2d 980 - Coon v. State