McCray v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis
750 F.2d 1113 · 1984
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Batson v. Kentucky (1986), Lockhart v. McCree (1986)
73 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 18 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Washington v. Davis · Swain v. State of Alabama · Duncan v. State of Louisiana
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In order to rebut a defendant's showing, the prosecutor need not show a reason rising to the level of cause. There are a number of bases on which a party may believe, not unreasonably, that a prospective juror may have some slight bias that would not support a challenge for cause but that would make excusing him or her desirable. Such reasons, if they appear to be genuine, should be accepted by the court, which will bear the responsibility of assessing the genuineness of the prosecutor's response and of being alert to reasons that are pretextual."”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““[W]e construe the Sixth Amendment’s provision to require the court to decide each case on the basis of the acts or practices complained of in that very case, and not to require the defendant to show, as Swain requires for an equal protection claim, that those acts or practices have had undesirable effects in case after case.... “Accordingly, we conclude that a defendant may appropriately subject to scrutiny under the Sixth Amendment the prosecution’s use of its peremptory challenges on the basis of its action in his own particular case.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Wiley · May v. State“(1) the group alleged to be excluded is a cognizable group in the community, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the challenges leading to this exclusion have been made on the basis of the individual venirepersons’ group affiliation rather than because of any indication of a possible inability to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Booker v. Jabe · Fields v. People
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.