State v. Gorman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The guidelines by which a criminal defendant can meet the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination are clearly set out. The defendant 1) 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;[ 1 ] 2) is entitled to rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate; 3) must show that those facts and any other relevant circumstances raise [a rebuttable presumption] that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. This combination of factors in the empaneling of the petit jury establishes the requisite rebuttable presumption of purposeful discrimination. The trial judge must determine whether the defendant has made the requisite showing, considering all relevant circumstances____ If the trial judge finds that the defendant has failed to establish a prima facie case, there is no obligation on the prosecutor to offer any explanation for the use of a peremptory challenge and no entitlement on the part of the defendant to a hearing on the issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 86 Md. App. 377 - Adams v. State

2. ““We have learned that it is not wise to prophesy what the Supreme Court will do or anticipate how it will rule when an unresolved question comes before it. We are content, as was the Supreme Court, to leave the determination of issues unresolved in Batson to future litigation. It is apparent that what spurred Batson was the Court’s belief ‘that the practice of peremptorily eliminating blacks from petit juries in cases with black defendants remains widespread____’ It was this discriminatory practice which the Court addressed and sought to remedy. The venerable concept of the peremptory challenge in other respects was left intact. The majority expressed its recognition ‘that the peremptory challenge occupies an important position in our trial procedures____’ It did ‘not agree that [its] decision today will undermine the contri bution the challenge generally makes to the administration of justice.’ We decline to go further than did the Supreme Court. The circumstances here were unlike those in Batson.” (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 92 Md. App. 56 - Eiland v. State

3. ““In providing for jury trial in criminal causes, Maryland, in general, adheres to the common law system of trial by an impartial jury of 12 persons who must unanimously agree on a verdict____ In the empaneling of a petit jury the system provides, not only for challenges for cause, but for peremptory challenges. ‘The peremptory challenge has been in use without scrutiny into its basis for nearly as long as juries have existed.’ It was a venerable fixture at the common law and crossed the sea to become one of the most important of the rights in our federal and state systems. Although the federal and Maryland Constitutions do not confer a right to peremptory challenges, ‘those challenges traditionally have been viewed as one means of assuring the selection of a qualified and unbiased jury.’ ... Throughout its long history, the description of the challenge as ‘peremptory’ meant precisely what that adjective connoted in common usage — ‘conclusive or absolute; decisive.’ ” (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 92 Md. App. 56 - Eiland v. State