Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

133 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"First, the fact that a prospective juror is or was a member of a law enforcement body does not automatically disqualify that venire person. See Harris v. State, 82 Md.App. 450, 470 , 572 A.2d 573, 583 (trial judge did not err when he failed to strike former state trooper for cause where trooper indicated that he was able to render fair and impartial judgment despite earlier employment), cert. denied, 320 Md. 800 , 580 A.2d 218 (1990). Likewise, the mere fact that a prospective juror is related to or associated with members of the law enforcement community does not constitute cause for disqualification. Goldstein v. State, 220 Md. 39, 45 , 150 A.2d 900, 904 (1959); Shifflett v. State, 80 Md.App. 151, 156 , 560 A.2d 587, 589 (1989), aff'd on other grounds, 319 Md. 275 , 572 A.2d 167 (1990); Baker v. State, 3 Md.App. 251, 254 , 238 A.2d 561, 564 (1968). In general, the professional, vocational, or social status of a prospective juror is not a dispositive factor establishing cause to disqualify. Rather, the proper focus is on the venire person's state of mind, and whether there is some bias, prejudice, or preconception. Short of those instances where there is a demonstrably strong correlation between the status in question and a mental state that gives rise to cause for disqualification, mere status or acquaintance is insufficient to establish cause for disqualification of a prospective juror. The fact that a prospective juror is employed as, related to, or associated with a law”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. State · Depew v. Sullivan

2. “"[W]here the parties identify an area of potential bias and properly request voir dire questions designed to ascertain jurors whose bias could interfere with their ability to fairly and impartially decide the issues, then the trial judge has an obligation to ask those questions of the venire panel. Merely asking general questions such as "is there any reason why you could not render a fair and impartial verdict," is not an adequate substitute for properly framed questions designed to highlight specific areas where potential jurors may have biases that could hinder their ability to fairly and impartially decide the case."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Moore v. State · 117 Md. App. 573 - Fowlkes v. State

3. “"`the broad rule [is] that any circumstances which may reasonably be regarded as rendering a person unfitted for jury service may be made the subject of questions and a challenge for cause. In other words, an examination of a prospective juror on his voir dire is proper as long as it is conducted strictly within the right to discover the state of mind of the juror in respect to the matter in hand or any collateral matter reasonably liable to unduly influence him.'"”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Md. App. 168 - Singfield v. State · Moore v. State