State v. Woolley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Court: Would [those events] affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? ~ Juror: I don't think so-well, I have talked to my fiancé about this because I also know someone who is accused of-well, someone who accused someone of raping them and it wasn't true. And that, I mean, I think I kind of see it from both ways now more than other people. I might understand it more. Cause, I think, to accuse somebody of that, because it was such a hard thing to deal with and to accuse somebody of that when it didn't happen, you know, I just, I can see both, how everybody kind of feels in a situation cause it's- The Court: You think that might give you some particularly good insight into a case? Well, I kinda think so, just because I think I would know-I mean, I just know what's going on more than some people did and I know it, to listen to it, and I think I'd pay more attention. And it's more relevant to me because I've had so many different experiences with it. Juror: & ob as The Court: Are there any issues that you are presently dealing with that is as a result of that that would tend to affect your ability to look at the evidence impassionately and impartially in this case? | I don't think so. Cause it was, I don't know, it was just different. Juror: &ok or Mr. Cope: Your honor, I'd like to ask a few questions about this other situation that you know about where someone was falsely accused. How recent is that? Juror: Very recent. Are the people involved-could you ident”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Simmons · State v. Brooks

2. “(4) the existence of any social, legal, business, fiduciary or other relationship between the prospective juror and any party, witness or person alleged to have been victimized or injured by the defendant, which relationship when viewed objectively, would suggest to reasonable minds that the prospective juror would be unable or unwilling to return a verdict which would be free of favoritism.... (14) [when] a state of mind exists on the part of the juror with reference to the cause, or to either party, which will prevent him from acting impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fletcher · State v. Ellifritz