Pamplin v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.2d 1 · 1966
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably State v. Bible (1993), Gordon v. United States (1971)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Fay v. Noia · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Tumey v. State of Ohio · Estes v. Texas
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where outside influences affecting the community’s climate of opinion as to a defendant are inherently suspect, the resulting probability of unfairness requires suitable procedural safeguards, such as a change of venue, to assure a fair and impartial trial.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under the Rideau rule the trial court is not precluded from utilizing the voir dire to help gauge the intensity of community prejudice inspired by pre-trial publicity. The point of Rideau is that the trial judge need not rely solely on the prospective jurors’ own protestations against their individual bias. The court must make an independent determination of whether a fair trial can be obtained in the community based upon all the evidence available at the time.” (Emphasis added.) 364 F.2d at 6, fn. 9 . “In Estes v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 335 F.2d 609 , cert. denied, 1965, 379 U.S. 964 , 85 S.Ct. 656 , 13 L.Ed.2d 559 , a post -Rideau decision, this Court affirmed a district court denial of an application for venue change where the court had conducted a full hearing on the motion, the jurors were individually examined at length on voir dire, and there was no specific showing that community prejudice had resulted from pre-trial publicity about the case.” (Emphasis added.) 364 F.2d at 6, fn. 10 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where racial feeling may be strong, the voir dire, let alone group examination to which this defendant was restricted, can hardly be expected to reveal the shades of prejudice that may influence a verdict. Due process of law requires a trial before a jury drawn from a community of people free from inherently suspect circumstances of racial prejudice against a particular defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Beto
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.