Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 So. 2d 554 - State v. Neil

540 So. 2d 554 - State v. Neil’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 1993
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Smith · 366 So. 2d 1345 - State v. Monroe · 365 So. 2d 1348 - State v. McIntyre · 400 So. 2d 640 - State v. Sylvester · 498 So. 2d 196 - State v. Burge

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

  1. “A. I think so." After those questions were asked, neither defendant nor the state sought to clarify Mr. Lyons' objectivity as a potential juror. After the questioning of potential jurors was completed, counsel were asked by the trial judge to indicate which jurors they would accept. At that time, defense counsel challenged Mr. Lyons for cause. The judge denied the request. Neither the judge nor the state attempted to rehabilitate Mr. Lyons. As a result of the judge's denial of the challenge for cause, the defendant was forced to use one of his peremptory challenges to excuse Mr. Lyons. La.C.Cr.P. art. 797 states that a juror may be dismissed for cause on the grounds that: (2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground for challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; (3) The relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or enmity between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel, is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict.”
    1 later decision 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.