516 So. 2d 349 - State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Connick v. Thompson (2011), Connick v. Thompson (2011)
1 federal appellate · 100 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Swain v. State of Alabama · Griffith v. Kentucky
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish a prima facie case under Batson , the defendant must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the State has exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of his race from the petit jury.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Granier · State v. Davis“Every sentence of death shall be reviewed by this court to determine if it is excessive. In determining whether the sentence is excessive the court shall determine: (a) whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factors, and (b) whether the evidence supports the jury's finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance, and (c) whether the sentence is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Scales · State v. Connolly“By the Court: Ladies and Gentlemen, have you been able to come to a decision? By a Juror: No, Your Honor, we have not been able to come to a unanimous decision. By the Court: Can you tell me this, without saying which way it is, do you have any idea how split the decision is? By a Juror: Eleven to one. By the Court: And, do you believe that any further deliberation might result in your ability to reach a decision? By a Juror: No, Your Honor. By the Court: I take that to mean, you do not believe that it will.... - Reporter's Note: A conference ensued at the bench. By the Court: Ladies and Gentlemen, just so I do understand this, so that we can be very clear. It’s my understanding, from what you said, that you feel that even if you were to go back out now to attempt to deliberate some more, that it would be futile, that there would not be a chance of you reaching a verdict. Would that be correct? By a Juror: We'd like to go back in. By the Court: Ladies and Gentlemen, if you would go back in and attempt once again. If after a reasonable amount of time, it still appears that you’re not able to, well then, let the sheriff know and we will come back out....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. Cain
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.