521 So. 2d 1083 - Blackshear v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2013
23 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 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil · 522 So. 2d 18 - State v. Slappy · 503 So. 2d 350 - Slappy v. State · 486 So. 2d 565 - State v. Castillo · 485 So. 2d 1283 - State v. Jones
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only at this time does the court have the ability to observe and place on the record relevant matters about juror responses or behavior that may be pertinent to a Neil inquiry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pickett v. State · Burgess v. State“Based on our decision today in Slappy , we hold that the burden of proof clearly had shifted to the state. The state conceded that it had used its peremptory challenges to exclude eight members of a cognizable group from the panel. 504 So.2d at 1330-31 . At the time the defense's objection was made, not a single black member remained on the prospective panel. There was no indication that any of the excluded blacks would be unfair or partial, nor did the prosecutor so contend. See State v. Jones, 485 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 1986). Indeed, when pressed by the trial court, the state at first was unable to recall any neutral record-based reason for excluding eight blacks from the panel. 504 So.2d at 1331 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A second issue is whether the objection to the improper use of peremptories must be raised prior to the jury being sworn. The answer is in the affirmative. In Neil we outlined the procedure required to preserve this issue. A timely objection must be raised and the state must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the use of a peremptory was not motivated solely by race. Clearly, an objection must be raised prior to the swearing of the jury, and the issue being presented for the first time on a motion for mistrial, after the jury is sworn, is not timely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Murphy v. State
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.