Freeman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2006 · most notably Adams v. Texas (1980), Brock v. Texas (1977)
2 federal appellate · 85 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Irvin v. Dowd · Illinois v. Allen
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The constitutional standard of fairness requires that a defendant have ‘a panel of impartial, “indifferent” jurors.’ Irwin v. Dowd, supra, 366 U.S. [717] at 722, 81 S.Ct. [1639] at 1642, [ 6 L.Ed.2d 751 ]. Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. ‘To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ Id., at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1642 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bell v. State · Cockrum v. State““It occurs to us that there is no error shown by the court’s ruling because, (a) it is not made to appear that any of the other members of the jury panel heard the remark, (b) that if they did hear it, they were influenced thereby to the prejudice of appellant, (c) that the juror in question nor any other juror who may have had a similar opinion was forced upon appellant. In the absence of which no injury to him is shown.” Johnson, 205 S.W.2d at 774 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““... (d) For expenses incurred for purposes of investigation and expert testimony, a reasonable fee to be set by the court but in no event to exceed $500;” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. State · Quin 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.