Barnes v. Joyner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'any private communication, contact, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is ... presumptively prejudicial.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Lillie Mae Trail · 135 S. Ct. 2643 - Joyner v. Barnes

2. “During the sentencing phase of Barnes’ trial, the jury was charged with deciding whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment or a sentence of death for Barnes and his co-defendants. Clearly, then, “the matter before the jury” was the appropriateness of the death penalty for these defendants. To the extent that a juror had a conversation with a third party about the spiritual or moral implications of making this decision, the communication “was of such a character as to reasonably draw into question the integrity of the verdict,” Stockton v. Virginia 1 852 F.2d [740] at 743 [ (4th Cir.1988) ], and further inquiry in a Remmer hearing was required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hurst v. Joyner

3. “• [A] juror being offered a bribe during trial and subsequently being investigated by an FBI agent, Remmer , 347 U.S. at 229 -30 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ; • [A] juror applying for a job at the prosecuting attorney's office during the trial, Smith v. Phillips , 455 U.S. 209 , 216-18, 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982) ; • [A] local restaurant owner suggesting to jurors in a capital case that "they ought to fry the son of a bitch," Stockton , 852 F.2d at 743 ; and • [A]llegations, if proven to be true during an evidentiary hearing, that a juror's husband pressured her throughout the trial to vote for the death penalty, Fullwood , 290 F.3d at 681 -82 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Johnson