State v. Cofield’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably State v. Eason (1994), State v. Robinson (1990)
7 federal appellate · 37 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 Michigan v. Long · Alexander v. Louisiana · Smith v. Texas · Rose v. Mitchell · Ballard v. United States
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article I, section 26 does more than protect individuals from unequal treatment. The people of North Carolina have declared in this provision that they will not tolerate the corruption of their juries by racism, sexism and similar forms of irrational prejudice. They have recognized that the judicial system of a democratic society must operate even-handedly if it is to command the respect and support of those subject to its jurisdiction. It must also be perceived to operate evenhandedly.... .... ... The effect of racial discrimination on the outcome of the proceedings is immaterial. Our state constitutional guarantees against racial discrimination in jury service are intended to protect values other than the reliability of the outcome of the proceedings. Central to these protections, as we have already noted, is the perception of evenhandedness in the administration of justice. Article I, section 26 in particular is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial system, not just the reliability of the conviction obtained in a particular case. The question, therefore, is not whether discrimination in the foreman selection process affected the outcome of the grand jury proceedings; rather, the question is whether there was racial discrimination in the selection of this officer at all.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[n]o person shall be excluded from jury service on account of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“constitute adequate and independent state grounds for our decision in this case.”
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.