State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that: (1) The juror lacks a qualification required by law; (2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his impartiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; * * * (4) The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court; or”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 803 So. 2d 157 - State v. Daniels · 792 So. 2d 160 - State v. Ledet

2. “A challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his or her ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied. State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), 682 So.2d 713 , [ reh'g denied, (La.10/4/96) ]; State v. Bailey, 97-302 (La.App. 5th Cir.4/28/98), 713 So.2d 588 , writ denied, 98-1458 (La.10/30/98), 723 So.2d 971 . The trial judge is afforded great discretion in determining whether cause has been shown to reject a prospective juror, and such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal unless a review of the voir dire as a whole indicates an abuse of that discretion. State v. Lee, 93-2810 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 102 ; State v. Alberto, 95-540 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/28/95), 665 So.2d 614 , writ denied, 95-1677 (La.3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1222 , writ denied, 96-0041 (La.3/29/96), 670 So.2d 1237 . To prove error warranting reversal of both the conviction and sentence, a defendant need only show that she exhausted all of her peremptory challenges and that the trial judge erroneously denied a cause challenge. State v. Connolly, 96-1680 (La.7/1/97), 700 So.2d 810 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 803 So. 2d 157 - State v. Daniels · 786 So. 2d 785 - State v. Williams