Carrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2010
9 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 · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler · Ex Parte Branch · 548 So. 2d 590 - Powell v. State · 555 So. 2d 309 - Davis v. State
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" ' "3. Disparate treatment — persons with the same or similar characteristics as the challenged juror were not struck. Slappy [v. State] , 503 So.2d [350] at 354 [Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987]; [People v.] Turner , 42 Cal.3d [711] at 725, 726 P.2d [102] at 110, 230 Cal.Rptr. [656] at 664 [1986]; Wheeler , 22 Cal.3d [at] 282, 283 [583] P.2d at 760, 148 Cal.Rptr. at 906." ' "In the instant case, the State engaged in the type of disparate treatment denounced in Branch. See also Acres v. State , 548 So.2d 459 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987) (wherein this Court held that the validity of the prosecutor's reasons for striking two black venirepersons because they had had traffic citations did not 'stand up under close scrutiny' when the record revealed that two white jurors who served on the jury had similar traffic offenses, at 473). Here, as in Acres , the State simply did not remove white persons for the same reasons given by the State for removing blacks." (Some bracketed language original; some added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"'"Once the prosecutor has articulated a nondiscriminatory reason for challenging the black jurors, the other side can offer evidence showing that the reasons for explanations are merely a sham or pretext. [People v.] Wheeler , 22 Cal.3d [258] at 282, 583 P.2d [748] at 763-64, 148 Cal.Rptr. [890] at 906 [1978]. Other than reasons that are obviously contrived, the following are illustrative of the types of evidence that can be used to show sham or pretext:”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"'"3. Disparate treatment — persons with the same or similar characteristics as the challenged juror were not struck. Slappy [v. State] , 503 So.2d [350] at 354 [Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1987]; [People v.] Turner , 42 Cal.3d [711] at 725, 726 P.2d [102] at 110, 230 Cal.Rptr. [656] at 664 [1986]; Wheeler , 22 Cal.3d 282 , 283 [583] P.2d at 760, 148 Cal.Rptr. at 906."'"”
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.