State v. Evins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 state decisions

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A motion to change venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Sheppard v. State, 357 S.C. 646 , 594 S.E.2d 462 (2004); State v. Manning, 329 S.C. 1 , 495 S.E.2d 191 (1997) (finding trial court abused discretion by granting the State’s motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity because no evidentiary facts supported finding of actual juror prejudice towards the State). When a trial judge bases the denial of a motion for a change of venue because of pretrial publicity upon an adequate voir dire examination of the jurors, his decision will not be disturbed absent extraordinary circumstances. State v. Caldwell, 300 S.C. 494 , 388 S.E.2d 816 (1990). When jurors have been exposed to pretrial publicity, a denial of a change of venue is not error where the jurors are found to have the ability to set aside any impressions or opinions and render a verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. State v. Tucker, 334 S.C. 1 , 512 S.E.2d 99 (1999); Manning, 329 S.C. at 1 , 495 S.E.2d at 191 . Therefore, mere exposure to pretrial publicity does not automatically disqualify a prospective juror. Id. The relevant question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant. Id. It is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate actual juror prejudice as a result of such publicity. Caldwell, 300 S.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Parker · State v. Stanko

2. “After a party objects to a jury strike, the proponent of the strike must offer a facially race-neutral explanation. Once the proponent states a reason that is race-neutral, the burden is on the party challenging the strike to show the explanation is mere pretext, either by showing similarly situated members of another race were seated on the jury or that the reason given for the strike is so fundamentally implausible as to constitute mere pretext despite a lack of disparate treatment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Garris · State v. McMillan

3. “The burden of persuading the court that a Batson violation has occurred remains at all times on the opponent of the strike.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shands