3 Tenn. Crim. App. 171 - Doyle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2005
9 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 Florida-Georgia Television Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Arnold Sanchez Fernandez v. John H. Klinger · Ussery v. Avery · State Ex Rel. Brown v. Newell · Turner v. State
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We hold, however, that his right to raise this question was waived when it was not raised upon the trial by motion or plea in abatement prior to his pleading to the indictment. Discrimination in the composition of venires has long been condemned in Tennessee. See Zanone v. State, 97 Tenn. 101 , 36 S.W. 711 . It has also been held in Tennessee, in a long line of cases, that unless a defendant objects by motion or plea in abatement to the venire before he pleads to the indictment he cannot thereafter avail himself of a claim that the venire was improperly composed. State v. Cole, 28 Tenn. 626 ; McTigue v. State, 63 Tenn. 313 ; Turner v. State, 89 Tenn. 547 , 15 S.W. 838 ; Ellis v. State, 92 Tenn. 85 , 20 S.W. 500 . See also State ex rel. Lawrence v. Henderson, Tenn.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 96 . We do not believe that one should be permitted to raise a question in a post-conviction proceeding that was waived by failure upon the trial, by design or otherwise, to timely raise it when our procedural law prescribes that it should be raised. To permit this type procedure would make a sham of the trial itself. A defendant would not raise such questions upon the trial in the hope that he would be acquitted, but with the assurance that he could avail himself of the complaint post-conviction to obtain a new trial. We hold that this question was disposed of upon the trial adversely to Doyle when it was not then raised. We are not dealing with a constitutional principle newly announced since h”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.