Weathersby v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 1493 · 1983
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Swain v. State of Alabama · Taylor v. Louisiana · Rideout v. United States · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler · Lewis v. United States
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[cjases where the prosecutor at trial volunteers his or her reasons for using peremptory challenges to exclude from the petit jury an identifiable group, present a situation distinguishable from Swain. In such cases, the court does not conduct the type of inquiry barred by Swain. The prosecutor’s motives have been voluntarily put on the record and the prosecutor can no longer be cloaked by the presumption of correctness. Our reading of Swain, convinces us that in such circumstances a court need not blind itself to the obvious and the court may review the prosecutor’s motives to determine whether “the purposes of the peremptory challenge are being perverted,” Swain, 380 U.S. at 224 , 85 S.Ct. at 838 , by excluding an identifiable group “from juries for reasons wholly unrelated to the outcome of the particular case on trial.” Id.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It should also be emphasized that in holding that petit juries must be drawn from a source fairly representative of the community we impose no requirement that petit juries actually chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population. Defendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition ... but the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof. Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538 , 95 S.Ct. at 702 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.