Ex Parte Bankhead’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Hall v. State (1999), 728 So. 2d 691 - Farrior v. State (1998)
2 federal appellate · 86 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 · Swain v. State of Alabama · Powers v. Ohio · Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc. · Nobile v. Schindler
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that the ruling of the trial court on a Batson hearing is entitled to substantial deference and will not be disturbed on review unless it is 'clearly erroneous.' Scales v. State , 539 So.2d 1074 (Ala. 1988).”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Bishop v. State · Wright v. State“merely by denying that he had a discriminatory motive or 'affirm[ing] [his] good faith in making individual selections.' " Id. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 -1724 (quoting Alexander v. Louisiana , 405 U.S. 625 , 632 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 1226 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972)). Cf. Ex parte Bankhead , 625 So.2d 1146 , 1148 (Ala. 1993) (wherein the Alabama Supreme Court noted that "nonspecific 'reasons' are generally insufficient because they are inherently untestable; there is simply no way to compare the prosecutor's statement with any objective fact to ascertain whether the prosecutor is truly relying on the reason he articulates”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“State struck 8 of the 10 black veniremembers; the lead prosecutor . . . [had a history of] systematically exclud[ing] black veniremembers . . .; and the State had failed to conduct any meaningful voir dire of the excluded black veniremembers”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.