Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 109 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) ... A challenge for cause may be made by either the state or the defense for any one of the following reasons: [[Image here]] (9) That he has a bias or prejudice in favor of or against the defendant; ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wallace v. State · Willis v. State

2. “Bias exists as a matter of law when a prospective juror admits that he is biased for or against a defendant, [cites omitted]; admits prejudice against persons who use intoxicating beverages, when the defendant is charged with an offense involving liquor, [cites omitted]; or when he admits or demonstrates prejudice toward a racial or ethnic class of which the defendant is a member. [Cites omitted]. Bias as a matter of law is also shown when the prospective juror ... is related to the State’s primary witness, [cite omitted]. When a prospective juror is shown to be biased as a matter of law, he must [emphasis theirs] be excused when chai- lenged, even if he states that he can set his bias aside and provide a fair trial, [cites omitted]. However, it is left to the discretion of the trial court to first determine whether or not bias exists. Where the juror states he believes that he can set aside any influences he may have, and the trial court overrules a challenge for cause, its decision will be reviewed in light of all of the answers the prospective juror gives. [Cites omitted],”

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

3. “I would be more biased,” and "it would be difficult” to treat these witnesses as strangers. However, the venireperson also testified that she could abide by the instructions of the trial judge, determine the case according only to the evidence adduced at trial, and set aside her personal knowledge of the defendant and State’s witnesses. Id. We thus concluded that the foregoing statements "sufficiently support the trial court’s implicit finding that [the venireperson] was not disqualified for bias or prejudice.”

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