State v. Kirkman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well established that, prior to the impaneling of the jury, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to reopen the examination of a juror, previously passed by both the State and the defendant, and to excuse such juror upon challenge, either peremptory or for cause. State v. Bowden, 290 N.C. 702 , 228 S.E. 2d 414 (1976); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 681 , 228 S.E. 2d 437 (1976); State v. McKenna, 289 N.C. 668 , 224 S.E. 2d 537 , death sentence vacated, 429 U.S. 912 (1976); State v. Harris, 283 N.C. 46 , 194 S.E. 2d 796 , cert. den., 414 U.S. 850 (1973). In the foregoing cases, we held that G.S. 9-21(b) providing that the State’s challenge, whether peremptory or for cause, must be made before the juror is tendered to the defendant “does not deprive the trial judge of his power to closely regulate arid supervise the selection of the jury to the end that both the defendant and the State may receive a fair trial before an impartial jury.” State v. McKenna, supra, at 679. In all the foregoing cases, the challenge in question was allowed before the jury was impaneled. We perceive no reason for the termination of this discretion in the trial judge at the impanelment of the jury. This assignment of error is overruled.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McLamb · State v. Brady