8 Cal. 4th 137 - People v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 421 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 449 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a party believes his opponent is using his peremptory challenges to strike jurors on the ground of group bias alone, he must raise the point in timely fashion and make a prima facie case of such discrimination to the satisfaction of the court____ [¶] ... [¶] Upon presentation of this and similar evidence—in the absence of course, of the jury—the court must determine whether a reasonable inference arises that peremptory challenges are being used on the ground of group bias alone.... [¶] If the court finds that a prima facie case has been made, the burden shifts to the other party to show if he can that the peremptory challenges in question were not predicated on group bias alone.... [¶] If the court finds that the burden of justification is not sustained as to any of the questioned peremptory challenges, the presumption of their validity is rebutted. Accordingly, the court must then conclude that the jury as constituted fails to comply with the representative cross-section requirement, and it must dismiss the jurors thus far selected. So too it must quash any remaining venire.... Upon such dismissal a different venire shall be drawn and the jury selection process may begin anew.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Cal. App. 4th 162 - People v. Willis · Daniel Adam Wade v. Carl Terhune Gail Lewis Paul Christopher Buckley Opinion

2. “[I]t is well established that the use of peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors solely on the basis of a presumed group bias, based upon membership in a cognizable group, violates both the federal and state Constitutions. ( Batson v. Kentucky [, supra ,] 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 .) `”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Cal. App. 4th 162 - People v. Willis · 87 Cal. App. 4th 781 - People v. Gray

3. “`[w]hile the fact that the jury included members of a group allegedly discriminated against is not conclusive, it is an indication of good faith in exercising peremptories, and an appropriate factor for the trial judge to consider in ruling on a Wheeler objection.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 324 N.J. Super. 558 - State v. Clark · 37 Cal. 4th 1067 - People v. Guerra