Purkett v. Elem’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

884 federal appellate · 24 district · 2,517 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 4,176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.”

   360 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Chukwumwa Okonkwo v. United States

2. “[A] defendant may establish a prima facie ease of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant’s trial. To establish such a case, the defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race ... [T]he defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to ex- elude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors. Though this requirement imposes a limitation in some cases on the full peremptory character of the historic challenge, we emphasize that the prosecutor’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause.... The prosecutor therefore must articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried. The trial court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Collins · 672 So. 2d 933 - State v. Prout

3. “[2] The assistant solicitor who tried the case apparently was not present when the jury pool was qualified, and worked from a list prepared by another solicitor when selecting the jury. [3] We note, however, that the United States Supreme Court recently held, in a per curiam opinion, that to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination, the proffered reason must only be facially neutral; the explanation need not be”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Gill · United States of America v. Jesse J. Evans