State v. Shuler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

90 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “cannot vouch for the credibility of a witness by expressing or implying his personal opinion concerning a witness’ truthfulness .... Improper vouching occurs when the prosecution places the government’s prestige behind a witness by making explicit personal assurances of a witness’ veracity, or where a prosecutor implicitly vouches for a witness’ veracity by indicating information not presented to the jury supports the testimony....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 212 W. Va. 263 - State v. Swims · Gilchrist v. State

2. “[A] racially discriminatory peremptory challenge in violation of Batson cannot be saved because the proponent of the strike puts forth a non-discriminatory reason.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Douglas · McCormick v. State

3. “After a party objects to a jury strike, the proponent of the strike must offer a facially race-neutral [or gender-neutral] explanation. This explanation is not required to be persuasive or even plausible. Once the proponent states a reason that is race-neutral [or gender-neutral], the burden is on the party challenging the strike to show the explanation is mere pretext, either by showing similarly situated members of another race [or the other gender] were seated on the jury or the reason given for the strike is so fundamentally implausible as to constitute mere pretext despite a lack of disparate treatment.”

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