Johnson v. Love’s Empirical Analysis
40 F.3d 658 · 1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 61 Cal. 4th 363 - People v. Scott (2015), State v. Williams (2003)
10 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Hernandez v. New York · Avery v. State of Georgia · Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass'n
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here will undoubtedly be post-conviction relief proceedings in which the state, by reason of death, absence, or faded memory, will be unable to produce a prosecutor with a specific recollection of the reason for a challenge alleged to violate Batson . Courts frequently are required to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence regarding a decision-maker’s state of mind, however, and we are unwilling to rule out the possibility that the state may be able to satisfy its step two Batson burden by tendering circumstantial evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““require that the state’s evidence, direct or circumstantial, be such that, if credited, it will establish that invidious discrimination played no role in the prosecutor’s challenge. Stated conversely, the Batson inquiry ends and the conviction must be vacated at the second stage of the analysis if the state’s explanation is such that, taken at face value, it either demonstrates an equal protection violation ... or would otherwise be inadequate as a matter of law to support the conviction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the Supreme Court explained: Once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether a defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot. Johnson v. Love, 40 F.3d 658, 664 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359 [ 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 ] (1991)) (emphasis added). Here, only one of the requirements for mooting a pri-ma facie case has been met, as the trial court did not rule on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.