75 Wash. App. 537 - State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2019
6 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 Irvin v. Dowd · 71 Wash. 2d 119 - Gordon v. Deer Park School District No. 414 · 77 Wash. 2d 503 - State v. Parnell · 71 Wash. App. 280 - Brady v. Fibreboard Corp.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“then the parties would have had the opportunity to examine juror X, and the trial court could have made a determination based on its assessment of the juror's responses, credibility, and demeanor whether or not juror X, in fact, held a racial bias such that he could not have decided the case fairly and impartially. Moreover, through further inquiry, the parties could have examined other jurors about whether race played a role during their deliberations, and juror X would have had the opportunity to explain his statements and the context in which they were made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging . . . .” RCW 4.44.170(2). In the recent case of State v. Jackson, 75 Wn. App. 537 , 879 P.2d 307 (1994), review denied, 126 Wn.2d 1003 (1995), a juror referred to African Americans as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“as a matter of due process, the trial court should ... conduct[ ] an evidentiary hearing before ruling on [a] motion for a new trial”
1 later decision 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.