Fields v. People’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 125 Ill. 2d 50 - People v. Evans (1988), Ex Parte Bird (1991)
4 federal appellate · 38 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
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Swain v. State of Alabama · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Griffith v. Kentucky
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power— to make available the common sense judgment of the community ... in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he party may show that his opponent has struck most or all of the members of the identified group from the venire, or has used a disproportionate number of peremptories against the group. He may also demonstrate that the jurors in question share only this one characteristic — their membership in the group — and that in all other respects they are as heterogenous as the community as a whole. Next the showing may be supplemented when appropriate by such circumstances as the failure of his opponent to engage the same jurors in more than desultory voir dire, or indeed to ask them any questions at all. Lastly * * * the defendant need not be a member of the excluded group in order to complain of a violation of the representative cross section rule; yet if he is, and especially if in addition his alleged victim is a member of the group to which the majority of the remaining jurors belong, these facts may also be called to the court’s attention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Aragon“[A] prosecutor’s purposeful, discriminatory and systematic exercise of peremptory challenges in a given case to exclude from the jury panel Spanish-surnamed persons solely on the basis of presumed group characteristics violates the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, section 16 of the Colorado Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Aragon
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.