State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2013
10 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 Wainwright v. Witt · Pinkerton v. McCotter · State v. Smith · State v. Young · State v. Hopkins
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Consideration of each of the above cases compels the following conclusions. (1) Unequivocal statements of bias on issues such as the death penalty or an absolute expectation that an innocent defendant will testify require the trial court to strike a prospective juror. (2) After making equivocal answers on matters of credibility a prospective juror may be rehabilitated if the rehabilitation is responsive to the indications of partiality, providing there is a clear, unequivocal assurance that the juror would not be partial. (3) In reviewing for an abuse of discretion on a ruling an appellate court will determine whether the stated reason for the possibility of partiality remained relevant to the evidence and matters to be decided. (4) Where any question of partiality is raised, but not directly refuted by other answers and its application remains in the case in light of the evidence, then it is an abuse of discretion not to sustain a challenge for cause.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crader““Not once did Venireman McKay unequivocally state he could try the case impartially; at most, he said he would ‘try’ to be impartial. In these circumstances, judicial discretion required the challenge for cause be sustained and Venireman McKay replaced by another from the pool of readily available jurors. Failure to do so constituted reversible error.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crader
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.