Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 So. 2d 586 - Siebert v. State

562 So. 2d 586 - Siebert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Dill v. State (1991), Hall v. State (1999)

64 state decisions

3501989199020002010decided

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 · Townsend v. Sain · Rhode Island v. Innis · Irvin v. Dowd · Ake v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “[s]uch opinion must be so fixed ... that it would bias the verdict a juror would be required to render.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The relevant question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors at [the accused's] trial had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The Court: You indicated this morning that you had heard something about this case. "Potential Juror: Yes. "The Court: From what source was that? "Potential Juror: The newspaper and T.V. "The Court: All right. Do you remember any particular details about it? "Potential Juror: I remember that there was a van involved. I think the lady was either discovered or the arrest or both were made in Macon County. I believe that the way it was mentioned this morning that she was—had a family. "The Court: All right. If you are selected on this case, do you think you could put aside what you have heard and based your verdict strictly on the evidence in court? "Potential Juror: I think so. "The Court: Well, I need to know for sure whether or not you can do that? "Potential Juror: Yes, sir. I can do that. "The Court: And do you think you— despite what you heard in this case, do you think you can be a fair and impartial juror? "Potential Juror: Yes, sir. "The Court: Do you have a fixed opinion as to the guilt or the innocence of this Defendant? "Potential Juror: No, sir. "The Court: All right. We will let you meet the other jurors downstairs at three. You may go. "Mr. Ray [defense counsel]: Your Honor, excuse me. Mr. T., I believe, this was a— "The Court: Oh, yes. You made a political contribution to Mr. Abbett's [district attorney] campaign? "Potential Juror: No, sir. I had—I put signs up in my yard for him together and— "The Court: Okay. The fact that you did that, would that have a beari”
    3 later decisions 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.