Edmonds v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Jones v. State (2004), Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson (2007)
26 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 · Swain v. State of Alabama · Hernandez v. New York · Powers v. Ohio · Purkett v. Elem
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nless it is impossible to reconstruct the circumstances surrounding the peremptory challenges, due perhaps to the passage of time or the unavailability of the trial judge, the proper remedy where the trial court does not satisfy Batson 's requirements is a new Batson hearing in which the trial court must satisfy the three-step process mandated by that case and its progeny.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In Harley v. State, 341 Md. 395, 398 , 671 A.2d 15 , m16 (1996), the prosecutor told the court that she had a “general rule” of challenging jurors who were single and under thirty, a policy with no apparent connection to the circumstances of the ease or the individual jurors. The prosecutor explained that she preferred to seat jurors over thirty years old and married because she believed that jurors with those characteristics were more stable and therefore more state-oriented. See id. at 402 , 671 A.2d at 19 . The trial court found the prosecutor’s explanation race-neutral and non-pretextual. We affirmed, holding that we ‘cannot conclude that the trial judge’s findings were clearly erroneous.’ Id. at 404 , 671 A.2d at 19 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Spencer v. State“A neutral explanation has been defined as "an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race-neutral." The question presented is the facial validity of the reasons offered by the State. Whether a reason is persuasive is not relevant at this stage of the inquiry. The prosecutor's burden of production under step two is limited. The State had to produce a race-neutral reason, not a believable one. A trial court meets its obligation under step two by requiring the proponent of the strike to offer a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.