Koo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Peremptory challenges, by enabling each side to exclude those jurors it believes will be most partial toward the other side, are a means of eliminat{ing] extremes of partiality on both sides, thereby assuring the selection of a qualified and unbiased jury." . Moreover, "[the essential nature of the peremptory challenge is that it is one exercised without a reason stated, without inquiry and without being subject to the court's control." ... Indeed, often a reason for it cannot be stated, for a trial lawyer's judgments about a juror's sympathies are sometimes based on experienced hunches and educated guesses, derived from a juror's ... "bare looks and gestures." _... That a trial lawyer's instine-tive assessment of a juror's predisposition cannot meet the high standards of a challenge for cause does not mean that the lawyer's instinet is erroneous.... Our belief that experienced lawyers will often correctly intuit which jurors are likely to be the least sympathetic, and our understanding that the lawyer will often be unable to explain his intuition, are the very reason we cherish the peremptory challenge.”

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

2. “[If] verdicts solemnly made and publicly returned into court can be attacked and set aside on the testimony of those who took part in their publication, then] all verdiets could be, and many would be, followed by an inquiry in the hope of discovering something which might invalidate the finding. Jurors would be harassed and beset by the defeated party in an effort to secure from them evidence of facts which might establish misconduct sufficient to set aside a verdict. If evidence thus secured could be thus used, the result would be to make what was intended to be a private deliberation, the constant subject of public investigation-to the destruction of all frankness and freedom of discussion and conference.”

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

3. ““In that case, defendants were on trial for conspiring to import heroin into the United States from Italy. The prosecution admitted evidence that one of the defendants, Giuseppe Gallina, had deposited a check for $20,000 three years before the crime at issue was committed. On appeal, Gallina contended that this evidence tended to show the commission of a prior criminal act. The court upheld the admission of the evidence because it tended to rebut the defense’s claim that Gallina was a poverty-stricken butcher who traveled to Italy occasionally for health reasons.””

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