Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 642 P2D 821 - Erick v. State

Erick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Fay v. Noia · Estes v. Texas · Whitus v. Balkcom · Alvarado v. State · Walker 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We appreciate the difficulties of obtaining a jury in communities such as Fort Yukon, where the record indicates that potential jurors are frequently related to or friends of parties, and where many of the potential jurors will have information about the case which disqualifies them as jurors. We also appreciate that there are frequently severe problems of communication, transportation, and availability of suitable facilities which make it difficult to hold a jury trial in such an area. The record shows that all of these problems were present in Erick's case. However, these problems are typical of the problems which result from the attempts of the court system to comply with the mandates of Alvarado, that "[j]ustice must be available to all of the people of Alaska." [4]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In Alvarado, a native defendant who was a resident of Chignik was charged with a rape allegedly committed in Chignik. He was tried over his objections in Anchorage by a jury which was selected from within 15 miles of Anchorage. In reversing Alvarado's conviction, the court emphasized the difference between Chignik, a remote native village approximately 450 miles from Anchorage, and the city of Anchorage. The court held that Alvarado was not provided with an impartial jury. The court said, "[W]e ... hold ... that an individual should not be forced, against his will, to stand trial before a jury which has been selected in such a manner as to exclude a significant element of the population of the community in which the crime was allegedly committed." [2]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “be inclined to uphold the trial court's decisgion to give Erick a choice to have his case tried before a jury of seven selected from the Fort Yukon area, or before a jury of twelve with the jury panel supplemented from the Fairbanks area.”
    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.