503 So. 2d 350 - Slappy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably Purkett v. Elem (1995), Ex Parte Branch (1987)
84 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Batson v. Kentucky · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler · 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil · 42 Cal. 3d 711 - People v. Turner · 35 Cal. 3d 161 - People v. Hall
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“related to the particular case to be tried.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State · Ex Parte Branch“"The latter, a permissible basis for exclusion of a prospective juror, was defined in Wheeler as `a bias relating to the particular case on trial or the parties or witnesses thereto.' Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 276 , 148 Cal.Rptr., at 902 , 583 P.2d at 760 . Further, a review of the record demonstrated that the prosecutor had not, in fact, satisfied his burden of showing that he excluded the Spanish surnamed jurors on the grounds of specific bias."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“THE COURT: All right. At this particular juncture, Ms. Lumpkin is the fourth black juror excused by the state. State, why are you excusing Ms. Lumpkin? ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: She said she thinks she knew [the defense counsel] from previously in her response. Whether or not she did or not did not I don't want someone on a defense THE COURT: Why did you excuse Ms. Jordan? ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: She didn't seem to be secure about sitting on a jury. She asked questions, I think, twice, whether or not she needs to know anything about the law or criminal justice system. Her health doesn't seem to be very good. I just didn't want someone like that on the jury. THE COURT: How about Mr. Williams? ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Both Mr. Williams and Mrs. Williams I excused because they're both teachers, assistant teachers, and both of them at elementary schools. That to me indicates a degree of liberalism that I prefer not have [sic] on a jury. THE COURT: Liberalism? ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Yeah, maybe more sympathetic to people who go astray than people who don't have to deal with kids in a classroom. Always getting into trouble. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Of course. They accepted Mr. Farrar, who is also a teacher, and I excused him. ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: He was also in the army. THE COURT: You never heard of liberals in the army? ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: I think you are less likely to find help in the military than elementary school.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.