Pierce v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.'”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. State · McNair v. State

2. “"The appellant also alleges that the prosecutor's reference to the victim during his opening statement violated Booth [v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987) ] and [ South Carolina v. ] Gathers [, 490 U.S. 805 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 , 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989)]. The comment to which the appellant refers is as follows: "`She was a sixty-nine year old widow that lived by herself, fiercely independent and managed her own life and her own affairs. Life was good to her. She has a daughter, Nancy Miller, who is here today who lives with her husband in Dothan. Her mother was a very old lady and she was fairly independent. Mrs. Miller looked after her mother on occasion and would visit her once or twice a week.' (R. 920.) "No objection was made to the prosecutor's argument, and we do not find anything improper with his comments. A prosecutor is allowed to argue to the jury what he expects the evidence to show. Furthermore, this evidence does not even approach the type of prejudicial information to which the jurors were exposed in Booth and Gathers. "The appellant also contends that Nancy Miller's testimony concerning the fact that `she was an only child, that she visited her mother often, and that her mother did not drink or smoke,' that `she was the one responsible for closing out her mother's estate, and [that] she "took care of her affairs" upon her death' should not have been admitted because it was irrelevant. (Appellant's brief, p. 71) This argument is meritl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pierce v. State

3. “"A review of the voluminous exhibits introduced in support of [Wimberly's] Motion to Change Venue reveals twice as much publicity concerning the King cases [4] as was produced concerning the Spivey case. These exhibits further reveal that most media attention occurred for several days during the King investigation, several days during the Spivey investigation which also included alleged connections with the King cases, during various court appearances, during the King trials and ultimate reversal of the King convictions. The King trials occurred during April 1998. There of course has been no trial in the Spivey case by agreement of the parties and the Court to await a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals on the King cases. The delay has possibly had the effect of allowing publicity to subside and memories to fade. "[Wimberly] also introduced voluminous material regarding the murders of two Dothan teenagers in Ozark and the arrest of Barrentine [5] for their deaths. In fact, WDHN news director Andrea Boutwell testified that there was far greater coverage for the Barrentine case. The Court finds any coverage concerning the Barrentine case as totally irrelevant to the present case, as Defendant Wimberly is not charged or even mentioned in connection with the Barrentine case. Attorneys can broach this issue during voir dire, if necessary. "The right to a fair and impartial jury is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states: `In all crimi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wimberly v. State