542 So. 2d 307 - Minshew v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 585 So. 2d 97 - Bankhead v. State (1990), Henderson v. State (1990)
41 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 United States v. Miller · United Transportation Union v. Taylor · 401 So. 2d 248 - Serritt v. State · 440 So. 2d 1155 - Brewer v. State · McKenzie v. State
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The test to be applied [in qualifying a prospective juror] is probable prejudice. Probable prejudice for any reason disqualifies a prospective juror. Qualification of a juror is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and, on appeal, this court will look to the questions propounded and the answers given by the prospective juror to see if this *Page 343 discretion was properly exercised.' Alabama Power Co. v. Henderson , 342 So.2d 323 , 327 (Ala. 1977). "`To justify a challenge of a juror for cause there must be a statutory ground . . ., or some matter which imports absolute bias or favor, and leaves nothing to the discretion of the trial court.' Nettles v. State , 435 So.2d 146 , 149 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, Ex parte Nettles , 435 So.2d 151 (Ala. 1983). "Even `[p]roof that the juror has a biased or fixed opinion is insufficient. There must be proof that the opinion was "so fixed that it would bias the verdict of the juror."' Clark v. State , 443 So.2d 1287 , 1288 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). `[I]f the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court,' he is not subject to challenge for cause. Mahan v. State , 508 So.2d 1180 , 1182 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Colby · Dailey v. State“(2) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“and, second, assuming such a prejudice existed, whether she could lay it aside, follow the court's instructions, and render an impartial verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Holliday v. State · Evans 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.