People v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Frank D. RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. (1996), Carrillo v. People (1999)
112 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 24 (§ 241 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)
Relies on New York Central Railroad v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners · People v. McCrary · Moore v. State · Coleman v. State · Leick v. People
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become unable or disqualified to perform their duties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Burnette · People v. Lee“for any reason short of the statutory criteria ... set out in section 13-71-112 (2) " ) . However, the allegations Rodriguez makes, although appropriate for review on direct appeal, do not rise to the level of constitutional error and, thus, do not merit review here. E In Issues 55, 62, 67-75, and 83-84 , Rodriguez alleges trial court error relating to the excusal or non-excusal of prospective jurors for cause. The Colorado statutes provide for excusal for cause where the court finds: Page 263 The existence of a state of mind in the juror evincing enmity or bias toward the defendant or the state ; however, no person summoned as a juror shall be disqualified by reason of a previously formed or expressed opinion with reference to the guilt or innocence of the accused, if the court is satisfied, from the examination of the juror or from other evidence, that he will render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence submitted to the jury at the trial [.] § 16-10-103 (1) (j) , 8A C.R.S. ( 1986 ) . A juror is appropriately excluded for cause if that juror would be unable "to set aside any bias or preconceived notion and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence adduced at trial and the instructions given by the court .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] mistrial is the most drastic of remedies. The trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a mistrial, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent gross abuse of discretion and prejudice to the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. West · People v. Moore
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.