State v. Sproling’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2016
8 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 · State v. Antwine · McDonald v. Missouri · Clark v. Florida · State v. Bannister
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish [a prima facie case], the defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group ... and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact ... that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits [discrimination]. Finally, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.... si: s}s s)c sis * Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the state to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors- [However,] the prosecutor’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Benton v. State · State v. Shelby“a number of federal circuit courts of appeal,” noted that our Supreme Court had not yet decided its efficacy, and declined to give it application. Id. at 886 . . The definition of dangerous instrument for purposes of the Criminal Code is given by § 556.061(9), RSMo 1986:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reynolds“the issue becomes whether the explanations of the prosecutor were case specific and presented credible and sufficient reason to support the finding of the trial court that they were adequate to rebut the presumption created by defendant’s prima facie showing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Benton v. State
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.