Michael John Bell v. Wayne K. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It was indicated in Witherspoon that the basis for the decision was the fact that there had been a systematic exclusion of all who opposed capital punishment. Having eliminated a substantial element of society the jury could not be said to express the conscience of the community. ‘[W]hen it swept from the jury all who expressed conscientious or religious scruples against capital punishment and all who opposed it in principle, the State crossed the line of neutrality.’ [ With erspoon, supra, at 520 ]. The crucial inquiry thus relates to whether it can be said that the jury failed to reflect a cross-section of society thereby losing its neutrality as a result of the erroneous exclusion of two ‘scrupled jurors’. * * * It would appear then that the jury did reflect the prevailing mores of society. It remained neutral in that there was not the systematic exclusion of any significant element of the community. “* * * Hence, viewing the jury selection process in its entirety by weighing the responses of the excluded and non-excluded prospective jurors, it cannot be said that ‘the State crossed the line of neutrality’ and entered the domain of the impartial jury proscribed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Bell v. Patterson, supra, 402 F.2d at 898-399 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barlow v. Wainwright

2. “It cannot be said that the exclusion of two prospective jurors whose testimony did not indicate a pre-trial commitment to irrevocably vote against the death penalty resulted in a jury that failed to reflect “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” This is because all other excluded jurors did acknowledge an unwaivering attitude in this regard, and further, there were prospective jurors who did indicate conscientious scruples but whom the court refused to excuse for cause. Hence, viewing the jury selection process in its entirety by weighing the responses of the excluded and non-excluded prospective jurors, it cannot be said that “the State crossed the line of neutrality” and entered the domain of the impartial jury proscribed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 76 Wash. 2d 650 - State v. Adams

3. “[i]t cannot be said that the exclusion of two prospective jurors whose testimony did not indicate a pre-trial commitment to irrevocably vote against the death penalty resulted in a jury that failed to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ * * * Hence, viewing the' jury selection process in its entirety by weighing the responses of the excluded jurors, it cannot be said that ‘the State crossed the line of neutrality’ and entered the domain of the impartial jury proscribed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Whisman