Tolbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Whittlesey v. State (1995), Gilchrist v. State (1995)
46 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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Weichert v. United States · Stanley v. State · Harris 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supreme Court was confident that trial judges, experienced in supervising voir dire, would ‘be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To establish such a case, the defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits “those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.” Finally, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. This combination of factors in the empaneling of the petit jury, as in the selection of the venire, raises the necessary inference of purposeful discrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mejia v. State“[T]he clear implication ... was that the court believed that Tolbert had met his burden to make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination____ We share the confidence of the Supreme Court that trial judges are able to decide whether the circumstances create such a prima facie case____ We cannot say that the trial judge was wrong in so determining.”
1 later decision 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.