Hayes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... I’m going to renew my objection about the Court’s denial of my attempt to strike the juror during jury selection after the State asked for a gender neutral reason. Do you want to go ahead and address that? THE COURT: Your issue is preserved — well, I should say — let me rephrase that. Your issue was raised during the jury selection process, so. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Right. I actually wanted to revisit that process because I don’t believe that we followed the right procedure in that situation. THE COURT: All right. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: There is a case called State versus Melbourne [Melbourne v. State ], 679 So.2d 759 . It lays out a three-step procedure for dealing with that situation. I don’t think we quite followed it so I just wanted to clarify it. Step one — step one of the procedure is that we — that the State make a timely objection, which he did, so we go to the second step. The second step is that I have to present a facially gender neutral reason for the strike. The case law says that a reason is gender neutral on its face if the reason does not involve gender, and then the Court has to rule on whether or not my reason was gender neutral in the face. I don’t recall the Court did that or not. THE COURT: I concluded that your reason was not genuine under the circumstances, which presumes that it was gender — or excuse me, a gender neutral reason — explanation. Now that does not address your client’s issue about wanting other people, but on the basis th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 94 So. 3d 452 - Hayes v. State

2. “[T]he transcript does show defense counsel’s initial response to the request for a gender-neutral justification for removing juror Haupt was “I don’t have a gender-neutral reason.” And although counsel recovered with “She has some relatives or whatnot in law enforcement,” two other individuals with family in law enforcement remained on the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 94 So. 3d 452 - Hayes v. State