Jackson v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2007
16 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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Swain v. State of Alabama · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits `those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“contain a factual basis to support the Commonwealth's attorney's explanations and the trial judge's conclusion”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Nothing in Batson mandates, however, the “complete exclusion of a racial group in order to prove discrimination.” To the contrary, under Batson , the trial judge is required to consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to (1) a pattern of strikes against persons of the cognizable racial group included in the particular venire, which might give rise to an inference of discrimination, and (2) the Commonwealth’s attorney’s questions and statements during voir dire examination and in exercising his challenges. Establishing some magic number or percentage to trigger a Batson inquiry would short circuit the case-by-case determination whether the “facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference” of discrimination. Just as the mere exclusion of one or more blacks from the jury does not always give rise to an equal protection violation, so too, the mere inclusion of blacks on a jury does not automatically preclude a finding of a prima facie case, especially where other facts and circumstances give rise to an inference of prosecutorial discrimination. “ ‘A single invidiously discriminatory governmental act’ is not ‘immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.