State v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 14 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he granting of a challenge for cause under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1212(9) rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., State v. Cunningham, 333 N.C. 744, 753 , 429 S.E.2d 718, 723 (1993); State v. Hightower, 331 N.C. 636, 641 , 417 S.E.2d 237, 240 (1992); State v. Quick, 329 N.C. 1, 17 , 405 S.E.2d 179, 189 (1991); State v. Watson, 281 N.C. 221, 227 , 188 S.E.2d 289, 293 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1043 , 34 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1972). We will not disturb the trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. State v. Brogden, 334 N.C. 39, 43 , 430 S.E.2d 905, 908 (1993). Where the trial court can reasonably conclude from the voir dire examination that a prospective juror can disregard prior knowledge and impressions, follow the trial court’s instructions on the law, and render an impartial, independent decision based on the evidence, excusal is not mandatory. State v. Simpson, 331 N.C. 267 , 415 S.E.2d 351 (1992); see also Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S 415, [431], 114 L. Ed. 2d 493, 509 , reh’g denied, [501] U.S. [1269], 115 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (1991) (relevant question when trial preceded by extensive pretrial publicity is not whether jurors remember the case but whether they have such fixed opinions that they cannot judge the defendant impartially).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jaynes