Bowden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Melbourne has advised us on review to use common sense and to not create traps of reversible error. Common sense indicates that the trial judge is in the best posture to determine whether a party is genuinely striking a potential juror for using body language, regardless of whether a notation is placed on the record by the judge or not.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dorsey v. State · 806 So. 2d 559 - Dorsey v. State

2. “A party objecting to the other side's use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike. At this point, the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step 2). If the explanation is facially race-neutral and the court believes that, given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained (step 3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 So. 3d 1108 - Murray v. State

3. “The right to an impartial jury guaranteed by article I, section 16, is best safeguarded not by an arcane maze of reversible error traps, but by reason and common sense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 So. 3d 1108 - Murray v. State