Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 605 SO2D 1243 - Joyce v. State

Joyce v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

16 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Swain v. State of Alabama · Duren v. Missouri · Ex Parte Bird · 444 So. 2d 884 - Robinson 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A failure to include the name of every qualified person on the jury roll is not a ground to quash an indictment or a venire, absent fraud or purposeful discrimination.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The relevant inquiry in a case of discrimination is whether the prosecutor intended to so discriminate. "We appreciate that it is impossible to know what is in the mind of another person, and that it is possible that, in stating his reasons for striking a black member of the venire, a prosecutor may give a reason that is not the true reason, but we are convinced that the trial judges in our system are in a much better position than appellate judges to decide whether the truth has been stated.' Scales v. State, 539 So.2d 1074, 1075 (Ala.1988). In the present case, the prosecutor said that based on his notes, he struck the juror based on his age. The discovery thereafter that he was wrong about the juror's age would not make that reason a fabrication or a sham. The trial court was in a better position to determine whether the prosecutor's statement was true. We do not find that the trial court's decision to overrule the defendant's objection on the stated ground is clearly erroneous."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The fair cross-section test set out in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), is whether a `distinctive group' in the community has been underrepresented in venires as a result of systematic exclusion of that group in the jury selection process.”
    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.