590 So. 2d 388 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2013
20 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 · Delaware v. New York · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County · Anschuetz & Co. v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prosecutor may strike from mistake, as long as the assumptions involved are based on an honest belief and are racially neutral”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`Neither Batson nor [ Ex parte ] Branch [, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987),] mandates that a defendant be given the opportunity to cross-examine jurors or other witnesses in order to establish that the State's reasons are based on sham or pretext.... Branch does not encompass the cross-examination of jurors or allow a defendant to go behind a prosecutor's information to determine if such information was true.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Neither Batson nor [Ex parte] Branch [ 526 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1987)] mandates that a defendant be given the opportunity to cross-examine jurors or other witnesses in order to establish that the State's reasons are a sham or a pretext. . . . A prosecutor may strike from mistake, as long as the assumptions involved are based on an honest belief and are racially neutral. . . . The appellant's contention that he has a right to present such testimony constitutes a substantial expansion of the findings in Batson and Branch , and we decline to do so. . . . The appellant's interpretation of Batson and Branch would require trial courts to conduct a trial within a trial and *Page 514 would needlessly lengthen trials. . . . Although defendants have the right to [rebut the government's reasons for exercising a peremptory strike] . . . under Branch , we find that the right to rebuttal does not include the cross-examination of jurors or the examination of victims, police officers, or any other individual who may have supplied the prosecutor with information about a juror which the prosecutor believes in good faith to be true. Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow such cross-examination."”
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.