Ford v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
67 F.3d 162 · 1995
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Tankleff v. Da Senkowski (1998), Howard v. Moore (1997)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Arizona v. Fulminante · Swain v. State of Alabama
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A prosecutor’s wrongful exclusion of a juror by a race-based peremptory challenge is a constitutional violation committed in open court at the outset of the proceedings. The overt wrong, often apparent to the entire jury panel, casts doubt over the obligation of the parties, the jury, and indeed the court to adhere to the law throughout the trial of the cause. The voir dire phase of the trial represents the jurors’ first introduction to the substantive factual and legal issues in a case. The influence of the voir dire process may persist through the whole course of the trial proceedings.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“constitutional violation involving the selection of jurors in a racially discriminatory manner is a 'structural defect' ... which cannot be subjected to a harmless error analysis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Ordinarily, given the trial court’s proximity, we afford great deference to its determination that a peremptory strike was made for race-neutral reasons, which is a purely factual issue. Moreover, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas ease, state court findings of fact are entitled to a presumption of correctness. In this case, however, the record simply offers no support whatsoever for the prosecutor’s stated reasons for striking jurors Billips and Talley, and thus, in the context of all of the evidence, we conclude that the district court’s findings that the prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretext for excluding the jurors on the basis of race are not clearly erroneous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Caldwell v. Dubois
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.