Dingle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
110 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Owens v. State (2007), Borchardt v. State (2001)
110 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Purkett v. Elem · Adams v. Texas · Mu'Min v. Virginia
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he procedure followed in this case shifts from the trial [court] to the [prospective jurors] responsibility to decide [prospective] juror bias . Without information bearing on the relevant experiences or associations of the affected individual [prospective juror]s who were not required to respond, the [trial] court simply does not have the ability, and, therefore, is unable to evaluate whether such [prospective juror]s are capable of conducting themselves impartially. Moreover, the [defendant] is deprived of the ability to challenge any of those [prospective juror]s for cause. Rather than advancing the purpose of voir dire, the form of the challenged inquiries in this case distorts and frustrates it.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“`Undergirding the voir dire procedure and, hence, informing the trial court's exercise of discretion regarding the conduct of the voir dire, is a single, primary, and overriding principle or purpose: to ascertain the existence of cause for disqualification.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Voir dire, the process by which prospective jurors are examined to determine whether cause for disqualification exists, see Boyd v. State, 341 Md. 431, 435 , 671 A.2d 33, 35 (1996), is the mechanism whereby the right to a fair and impartial jury, guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, ... see Grogg v. State, 231 Md. 530, 532 , 191 A.2d 435, 436 (1963), is given substance. See Hill v. State, 339 Md. 275, 280 , 661 A.2d 1164, 1166 (1995); Bedford v. State, 317 Md. 659, 670 , 566 A.2d 111 , 116 (1989). The overarching purpose of voir dire in a criminal case is to ensure a fair and impartial jury. See Boyd, 341 Md. 431, 435 , 671 A.2d 33, 35 (1996); Hill, 339 Md. 275, 279 , 661 A.2d 1164, 1166 (1995); Davis v. State, 333 Md. 27, 34 , 633 A.2d 867, 871 (1993); Bedford, 317 Md. 659, 670 , 566 A.2d 111, 117 (1989); Casey v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 217 Md. 595, 605 , 143 A.2d 627, 631 (1958); Adams v. State, 200 Md. 133, 140 , 88 A.2d 556, 559 (1952). In Davis [v. State ], 333 Md. [27,] 33, 633 A.2d [867,] 871, quoting Langley v. State, 281 Md. 337, 340 , 378 A.2d 1338, 1339 (1977) (citing Waters v. State, 51 Md. 430, 436 (1879)), we said, `a fundamental tenet underlying the practice of trial by jury is that each juror, as far as possible, be impartial and unbiased.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · State v. Thomas
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.