515 So. 2d 55 - Kinder v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 725 So. 2d 1063 - Price v. State. (1998), 585 So. 2d 97 - Bankhead v. State (1990)
74 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must have more than a bias, or fixed opinion, as to the guilt or innocence of the accused”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Minor v. State · Henderson v. State“"`"The test to be applied is can the juror eliminate the influence of his scruples and render a verdict according to the evidence. Ordinarily a juror is not disqualified where it appears that he is willing to follow the instructions of law given by the trial court and is able to decide the case impartially according to the evidence notwithstanding his scruples. The determination of this question is based on the juror's answers and demeanor and is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Tidmore [v. City of Birmingham, 356 So.2d 231 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, 356 So.2d 234 (Ala.1978)]. A juror is incompetent whose answers show that he would follow his own views regardless of the instructions of the court. Watwood v. State, 389 So.2d 549, 550 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 552 (Ala.1980)." "` Barbee v. State, 395 So.2d 1128, 1130-31 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).... "`"Thus, where a juror states that he has opinions but that he would try the case fairly and impartially according to the law and the evidence and that he would not allow his opinion to influence his decision, it is not error for a trial judge to deny a challenge for cause. Howard v. State, 420 So.2d 828, 831 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). `A juror who brings his thoughts out into the open in response to voir dire questions may be the one who later "bends over backwards" to be fair....' Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Ala.Cr.App.1983)." "` Mahan v. State, 508 So.2d 1180 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).' " Kinder v. State, 51”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“need not be excused merely because [the juror] knows something of the case to be tried or because [the juror] has formed some opinions regarding it.”
5 later decisions 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.