Shapard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 1998 · most notably Duffy v. United States (1973), Robison v. State (1984)
2 federal appellate · 56 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 Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Mooney v. Holohan · Estes v. Texas · People v. Savvides
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Mere fact that there has been widespread adverse pretrial publicity about defendant does not, by itself, establish reasonable probability that defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial jury at criminal trial and is therefore entitled to postponement of trial for indefinite or substantial period of time.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stidham v. State · Goodwin v. Page“"No person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon rumor, statements in public journals, or common notoriety, provided it appears to the court upon his declaration under oath or otherwise that he can and will notwithstanding such opinion, act impartially and fairly upon the matters to be submitted to him”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Koonce v. State · Cooper v. State“. .To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. . . .” (Citations omitted)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Frye v. State · Anderson v. State
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.