State v. Reid’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
December 1984
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Leichman · 285 So. 2d 221 - State v. Vassel · 285 So. 2d 204 - State v. Jack · 320 So. 2d 111 - Hood Motor Company, Inc. v. Lawrence · State v. Procell
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 2. Duties of the Jury Commission. (a) The Jury Commission shall impartially select a general venire composed of all qualified persons, except: (i) Those who are classified as excluded. (ii) Those who are exempt and who, having been so advised, choose to claim the exemption. 1 (iii) Those who are timely excused by the court. (b) Qualification, as well as those above stated exceptions in paragraph (a)(i), (ii), and (iii), may be ascertained by the jury commission on the basis of verified documented information available to it at the time of selection of the general venire. (c) Unless such verified documented information is available to the jury commission at the time of impartially selecting, revising or supplementing a general venire, all persons randomly chosen shall, not to exceed the required number, be impartially selected as the general venire. (d) Alternatively, the jury commission may determine qualification as well as the exceptions set forth in (a) above, on the basis of verified information obtained by means of an appropriate written questionnaire mailed to each person under consideration for impartial selection, revision or supplementation of a general venire. ” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kahey““Since the list of exempt classes is exclusive and the right to claim an exemption absolute, it is clear that, whether performed by a judge or a jury commission, the act of excluding an exempt person from the general venire is a purely ministerial function. While the code of criminal procedure in enumerating the duties of the jury commission does not expressly authorize the performance of this function, neither does it by direction or implication prohibit it. This court has recognized in the passage of its new rule concerning the selection and constitution of a general venire that the jury commission is an appropriate body to exclude the names of those claiming lawful exemptions. Moreover, we have specifically authorized a questionnaire process for ascertaining qualifications and claimed exemptions. We are unable to hold, therefore, that the actions of the Calca-sieu Parish jury commission in excluding from the general venire persons claiming lawful' exemptions are illegal.” (Footnotes omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kahey“The jury commission shall not include in, and shall delete from, the general venire the names of those persons who have served as grand or petit jurors in criminal cases or as trial jurors in civil cases during a period of two years immediately preceding their selection for jury service. However, if the name of such a person is included in a general venire, that person may claim an exemption from jury service or may waive the exemption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.