Keeton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 152 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Rousseau v. State (1993), Whitsey v. State (1990)
2 federal appellate · 152 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 · Swain v. State of Alabama · Neal v. Delaware · Ex Parte Branch · State v. Antwine
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The reasons offered by the prosecutor are not related to the facts of the case; (2) a lack of questioning of the challenged venireperson, or a lack of meaningful questions; (3) disparate treatment of the venireper-sons — persons with the same or similar characteristics as the challenged venire-person were not struck; (4) disparate examination of the venire-persons — questions designed to provoke certain responses that are likely to disqualify black venirepersons were put to blacks, but not to whites; (5) the percentage of peremptories used to strike minority panel members; and (6) an explanation based on a group bias where the group trait is not shown to apply to the challenged venireperson specifically.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Bryant v. State“The trial judge cannot merely accept the specific reasons given by the prosecutor at face value, the judge must consider whether the facially neutral explanations are contrived to avoid admitting acts of group discrimination. This evaluation by the trial judge is necessary because it is possible that an attorney, although not intentionally discriminating, may try to find reasons other than race to challenge a black juror, when race may be his primary factor in deciding to strike the juror.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. C_ E_ J v. State · Davis v. State“[0]ur focus, as well as that of the trial judge, should be on whether purposeful discrimination was established. We will of course consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial judge’s rulings and determine if those rulings are supported by the record. If the record supports the findings of the trial judge, they will not be disturbed on appeal.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.