Barber v. Ponte’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 982 · 1985
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Cresta (1987), State v. Gilmore (1986)
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 15 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. § 1861 (Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1867 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Roe v. Wade · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o hold that a litigant is not entitled to a representative jury when the jury venires are drawn from a fair cross-section of the community but that the cross-section requirement can be dispensed with when the dice fall a particular way in an individual case undermines the analytical foundation upon which the right to a jury drawn from a cross-section of the community is based.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“mere statistical imbalances, unexplained.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Burén court used the concept of ‘distinctive group’ in a case where women were subjected to discrimination. It is fair to assume that the court wanted to give heightened scrutiny to groups needing special protection, not to all groups generally. There is nothing to indicate that it meant to take the further step of requiring jury venires to reflect mathematically precise cross sections of the communities from which they are selected. Yet if the age classification is adopted, surely blue-collar workers, yuppies, Rotarians, Eagle Scouts, and an endless variety of other classifications will be entitled to similar treatment. These are not the groups that the court has traditionally sought to protect from underrepresentation on jury venires.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.