State v. Walton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A prolonged friendship by a venireman with a witness for a party, of itself, does not sustain contention that the refusal of the challenge for cause by the trial court was an abuse of discretion — absent a clearly drawn prejudice. In addition, pri- or knowledge about a case does not, per se, require that a potential juror be stricken when such knowledge does not preclude them from reaching a verdict based upon the evidence. Familiarity with some of the facts of a case without formation of an opinion as to guilt or innocence does not disqualify a juror. (Authorities omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shire

2. “1. ... [N]o person who has formed or expressed an opinion concerning the matter or any material fact in controversy in any case that may influence the judgment of such person ... shall be sworn as a juror in the same cause, 2. Persons whose opinions or beliefs preclude them from following the law as declared by the court in its instructions are' ineligible to serve as jurors on that case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities

3. “However, where an answer to a question suggests a possibility of bias and upon further questioning, the venireman gives unequivocal assurances of impartiality, the bare possibility of prejudice will not disqualify the juror or deprive the trial judge of discretion to seat the venireperson.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jacobs