Commonwealth v. Rico’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2018
6 federal appellate · 14 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 · Hernandez v. New York · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Powers v. Ohio · Purkett v. Elem
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. the race or gender of all the venirepersons in the jury pools; 2. the race or gender of all venirepersons remaining after challenges for cause; 3. the race or gender of those removed by the prosecutor; and 4. the race or gender of the jurors who served and the gender of jurors acceptable by the Commonwealth who were stricken by the defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“although a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise peremptory challenges for any reason related to his or her view concerning the outcome of the case, the equal protection clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the state's case against the black defendant. [ Batson ] at 87, 106 S.Ct. at 1718 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 81 . Racial discrimination in selection of jurors, the court said, harms not only the accused and the potential jurors and but also the public's confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“After such a record is established, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether challenges were used to exclude venirepersons on account of [their] race or gender. If the court finds in the affirmative, the prosecutor is to offer neutral reasons for each of its strikes.... The findings of the trial court are to be given great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed absent a determination that the trial court's ruling was clearly erroneous.”
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.