576 F. Supp. 1244 - McCray v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. “... It is a sound exercise of discretion for the [U.S. Supreme] Court to allow the various States to serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study before it is addressed by this court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wiley · Thompson v. United States

2. “appraisal of the importance of the underlying issue.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wiley · 622 F. Supp. 304 - Simpson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

3. “It [the peremptory challenge] is no less frequently exercised on grounds normally thought irrelevant to legal proceedings or official action, namely, the race, religion, nationality, occupation or affiliations of people summoned for jury duty ... Hence venireman are not always judged solely as individuals for the purpose of exercising peremptory challenges. Rather, they are challenged in light of the limited knowledge counsel has of them, which may include their group affiliations, in the context of the case to be tried. With these considerations in mind, we cannot hold that the striking of Negroes in a particular case is a denial of equal protection of the laws. In the quest for an impartial and qualified jury, Negro and white, Protestant and Catholic, are alike subject to being challenged without cause. To subject the prosecutor’s challenge in any particular case to the demands and traditional standards of the Equal Protection Clause would entail a radical change in the nature and operation of the challenge. The challenge, pro tanto, would no longer be peremptory, each and every challenge being open to examination, either at the time of the challenge or at a hearing afterwards. The prosecutor’s judgment underlying each challenge would be subject to scrutiny for reasonableness and sincerity. And a great many uses of the challenge would be banned. In light of the purpose of the peremptory system and the function it serves in a pluralistic society in connection with the instit”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. King v. County of Nassau