65 Wash. App. 828 - State v. Burch’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB (1994), 71 Wash. App. 444 - State v. Ashcraft (1993)
29 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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Singleton v. Wulff · Hernandez v. New York
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under Batson , . . . the defendant establishes a prima facie case first by showing that the peremptory challenge was exercised against a member of a constitutionally cognizable group. Second, the defendant must demonstrate that this fact "and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference" that the prosecutor's challenge of a venire person was based on group membership. In deciding whether a prima facie case has been established, the trial court "should consider all relevant circumstances", including a "pattern" of strikes against members of a constitutionally cognizable group and the "prosecutor's questions and statements during voir dire examination.” Once the defendant has established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the burden shifts to the State to "articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[f]irst, [the defendant] . . . show the peremptory challenge was exercised against a member of a constitutionally cognizable racial group. Second, the defendant must show that the use of the peremptory challenge and "other relevant circumstances” raise an inference of discrimination. Such circumstances may include a " 'pattern’ of strikes against members of a constitutionally cognizable group and the 'prosecutor’s questions and statements during voir dire examination’ ”.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The litigant must have suffered an “injury in fact,” thus giving him or her a “sufficiently concrete interest” in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance to the third party’s ability to protect his or her own interests.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Herron · James v. McDonald
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.