State v. Antwine’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 435 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 453 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Purkett v. Elem (1995), 128 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Young (1989)
13 federal appellate · 435 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City
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 453 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The ultimate burden of persuasion lies with and never shifts from the defendant ... A defendant may ‘rely on the fact ... that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits “those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate”.’ ... and may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) defendant is a member of a cognizable racial group, (2) that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of the defendant’s race from the venire, and (3) that ‘these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.' ... Defendant’s establishment of a prima facie case creates a rebuttable presumption that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. ... The burden ... then shifts to the State to rebut the presumption ... with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors. ... The proffered neutral explanation ‘must give a “clear and reasonably specific” explanation of the State’s “legitimate reason” for exercising the challenges.’ ... If the State comes forth with a neutral explanation, ‘the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted ... and the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity.’ ... Defendant now has the obligation to demonstrate that the State’s explanations are merely pre-textual and, thus, not the true reason for the use of”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Jackson“(1) defendant is a member of a cognizable racial group; (2) the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of the defendant’s race from the venire; and (3) “that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude venire persons from the ... jury on account of their race.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ex Parte Bird · State v. Kilgore“The “firmly convinced” language contained in the MAI definition is not new. It is substantially the same as that found in the federal instructions, and has been employed in federal and state courts alike. It is intended to assist lay jurors in their understanding of the legal phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The instruction achieves that purpose; in our view, “firmly convinced” is essentially synonymous with “beyond a reasonable doubt.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wickizer · State v. Feagan
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.