Fox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Lindsey problem arose during trial, while the judge was in command and under the responsibility of seeing that it was conducted as fairly as possible. The case before us presents a post verdict problem. In Lindsey, it was reasonable to require the judge to act upon a showing of a substantial possibility that the jury had been improperly exposed to extraneous material having a clear potential to taint its verdict. It is not reasonable, however, and would be counter-productive to require the judge, after a verdict has been returned, to run willy-nilly in search of evidence of a prejudicial impropriety upon the mere claim of a possible impropriety which, if it did in fact, occur, possibly harmed the claimant. The Lindsey procedures are not appropriate and are not available for attacking a verdict. [citation omitted]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Caruthers v. State · Harrison v. State

2. “Without a prima facie showing of exposure, we see no basis for the trial judge to consider the likelihood of prejudicial impact or the ultimate question of the remedial action required. Here, not only was there no such showing, the motion and affidavits did not even allege it. The most that can be said for them is that they alleged that the jury might have been exposed to the magazine cover and the companion editorial. There was no averment and no evidence that any juror had, in fact, seen or discussed the material or even that it had been in the jury room during the deliberations. The affidavits state only that the magazine was found in the jury room on the morning following the return of the verdict. We recognize a substantial possibility that the magazine was, in fact, in the jury room during deliberations; however, to say that it was and to say further that one or more jurors examined it requires a degree of speculation that is unnecessary and, therefore, inappropriate. Although a juror may not impeach his verdict, he may give testimony as to what transpired during the trial including the deliberations. Mattox v. United States, (1892) 146 U.S. 140 , 18 S.Ct. 50 , 36 L.Ed. 917 ; Llewellyn v. Stynchcombe, (5th Cir.1980) 609 F.2d 194 ; United States v. Vasquez, (9th Cir.1979) 597 F.2d 192 . If defendant, therefore, had a bona fide claim of jury taint, it behooved her first to allege that exposure did occur, as a matter of fact, and to support the claim with evidence, by affi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harrison v. State