Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant acknowledges the holding in Swain v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), to the effect that a defendant could not question a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges in a particular case even if the peremptory challenge was allegedly used to discriminate against a particular group of persons. The court there said: 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. State v. Thompson, 68 Ariz. 386 , 206 P.2d 1037 (1949); Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 378 , 13 S.Ct. 136, 139 , 36 L.Ed. 1011 [(1892)]. While challenges for cause permit rejection of jurors on a narrowly specified, provable and legally cognizable basis of partiality, the peremptory permits rejection for a real or imagined partiality that is less easily designated or demonstrable. Hayes v. State of Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 70 , 7 S.Ct. 350, 351 , 30 L.Ed. 578 [(1887)]. It is often exercised upon the ‘sudden impressions and unaccountable prejudices we are apt to conceive upon the bare looks and gestures of another,’ Lewis, supra 146 U.S., at 376 , 13 S.Ct., at 138 , upon a juror’s ‘habits and associations,’ Hayes v. State of Missouri, supra, 120 U.S., at 70 , 7 S.Ct., at 351 , or upon the feeling that ‘the bare questioning [a juror’s] indifference may sometimes provoke a resentment,’ Lewis, supra, 146 U.S., at 376 , 13 S.Ct., at 138 . It is no less fre”

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