52 N.C. App. 166 - State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The official commentary to N.C.G.S. 15A-1212 contains the following: “To the extent possible the Commission has at tempted to restate in this Article the rules governing selecting and impaneling the jury in a criminal case. This section incorporates the disqualifications set out in G.S. 9-3 and adds a number of additional grounds for challenge for cause.” (Emphasis ours.) Thus, N.C.G.S. 15A-1212(6) apparently is a codification of the case law which requires that a juror be excused when he is, in the trial judge’s opinion, unable to render a fair and impartial verdict because of preconceived opinions as to defendant’s guilt or innocence. This interpretation is consistent with subsection (9), which permits a challenge to be made on the grounds that a juror “[f]or any other cause is unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1212(9). It seems unlikely that anyone who read or heard about a criminal case through the media would not form some sort of notion regarding an accused’s guilt or innocence. To demand dismissal of every prospective juror who had prior knowledge of a case because he kept himself informed of current affairs arguably would “require our courts to exclude from service those best qualified to hear and deal with evidence and to understand instructions upon the law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Corbett

2. “Mr. MONROE: Yes, ... . All right. Would it be a fair statement that — to say that before you came today and sat on the jury panel you had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Corbett from these news accounts? Mrs. McRainey: Yeah. MR. Monroe: You had? Mrs. McRainey: Yeah. Mr. Monroe: Do you still have that opinion? MRS. MCRAINEY: Not that much, no. Mr. MONROE: Why have you changed your mind if you can tell me? Mrs. McRainey: Well, I wasn’t being fair. I was reading from the paper rather than listening to him or to— Mr. Monroe: Um huh. Mrs. MCRAINEY: —to the truth I guess. Mr. Monroe.- Does that mean that — you say reading— I’m not trying— Mrs. McRainey: I think — well, I think that I can listen to both sides and be fair. Mr. MONROE: [W]ill you base your verdict solely upon the evidence you hear in the courtroom and not consider any newspaper articles? Mrs. McRainey.- Oh, no, on —on just what I hear.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Corbett

3. “A challenge for cause to an individual juror may be made by any party on the ground that the juror: (6) Has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It is improper for a party to elicit whether the opinion formed is favorable or adverse to the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Corbett