Davis v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 1478 · 1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably Wainwright v. Witt (1985), McCleskey v. Kemp (1985)
19 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Sandstrom v. Montana
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first step is to establish that the group is one that is a recognizable, distinct class, ... Next, the degree of underrepresentation must be proved, by comparing the proportion of the group in the total population to the proportion called to serve as grand jurors, over a significant period of time ... Finally, ... a selection procedure that is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral supports the presumption of discrimination raised by the statistical showing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he importance of affording a defendant trial by a representative jury of his peers is magnified in capital cases, where juries are required to consider as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.”
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.