Holder v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Flowers v. State (2005), Armstrong v. State (2006)
35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Purkett v. Elem · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · Georgia v. McCollum
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have delineated a three-step process to be used in the case of Batson challenges. MacKintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 390 , 978 S.W.2d 293 (1998). First, the strike’s opponent must present facts to raise an inference of purposeful discrimination; that is, the opponent must present a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Id. Second, once the strike’s opponent has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the proponent of the strike to present a race-neutral explanation for the strike. Id. If a race-neutral explanation is given, the inquiry proceeds to the third step, wherein the trial court must decide whether the strike’s opponent has proven purposeful discrimination. Id. Here, the strike’s opponent must persuade the trial court that the expressed motive of the striking party is not genuine but, rather, is the product of discriminatory intent. Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Further, unless there is an objective showing of bias, there must be a communication of bias in order to require recusal for implied bias. Absent some objective demonstration by the appellant of the trial judge’s prejudice, it is the communication of bias by the judge that will cause us to reverse his or her refusal to recuse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State“The decision to excuse a juror for cause rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Philpott v. State
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.