Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 F.2d 948 - Woods v. Munns

Woods v. Munns’s Empirical Analysis

347 F.2d 948 · 1965

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
December 1979
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Beck v. Washington · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Stroble v. California · Frazier 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““. . . a negro defendant in a criminal case is not constitutionally entitled to be tried by a jury upon which there is a member, or members, of his race, and he is entitled to relief only upon proof submitted by him which discloses a purposeful discrimination’ to exclude members of a class from the jury panel.” (p. 950) Woods v. Munns, 347 F. 2d 948 (1965).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““There is no merit in the contention that there was such prejudice against Woods in Bourbon County which would deny him of a fair and impartial trial in that county as guaranteed by the Constitution. The burden of proving such a claim is upon the person making it. As said in Latham v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 330 F. 2d 865, 868 , cert. denied 379 U. S. 866 , 85 S. Ct. 134 , 13 L. Ed. 2d 69 , ‘Prejudice must be established “not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality,” . . .’ There was evidence of considerable community feeling when the outrageous crime with which Woods and his companions were charged became known, and there were some demonstrations at the time, with isolated incidents of threats over the telephone otherwise. The reports in the local newspaper were temperate and objective, and the evidence is overwhelming that at the time of trial there existed no unusual prejudice or hostility against Woods and his companions in the crime. This is illustrated by the fact that at the trial, where Woods was represented by able counsel of his own selection, not a single juror was challenged for cause. . . .” (p. 951.)”
    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.