Yee v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
463 F.3d 893 · 2006
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Cook (2008), Crittenden v. Ayers (2010)
15 federal appellate · 2 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 · Williams v. Taylor · Lockyer Attorney General of California v. Andrade · Purkett v. Elem · JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The three-step inquiry must be applied in congruence with the other legal principles articulated in Batson and Purkett . When this test is properly applied, a prosecutor’s failure to provide a reason for striking a potential juror is not an automatic violation of equal protection. Such a failure ... is evidence of discrimination. This evidence notwithstanding, the trial court must still proceed to step three before it can determine that purposeful discrimination has occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Sjtep two is an opportunity for the prosecution to explain the real reason for her actions. A failure to satisfy this burden to produce — for whatever reason — becomes evidence that is added to the inference of discrimination raised by the prima facie showing, but it does not end the inquiry. The trial court then moves on to step three where it considers all the evidence to determine whether the actual reason for the strike violated the defendant’s equal protection rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crittenden v. Ayers“[i]n the unlikely hypothetical in which the prosecutor declines to respond to a trial judge’s inquiry regarding his justification for making a strike, the evidence before the judge would consist not only of the original facts from which the prima facie case was established, but also the prosecutor’s refusal to justify his strike in light of the court’s request.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Runnels
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.