813 So. 2d 356 - State v. Langley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 17 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) that those discriminated against belong to a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment under the laws, as written or as applied; (2) that the degree of under-representa tion must be proved by comparing the proportion of the group in the total population to the proportion called to serve as grand jurors, over a significant period of time; and (3) that the selection procedure is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral so as to support the presumption of discrimination raised by the statistical showing.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Patrick Kennedy v. Burl Cain, Warden · 823 So. 2d 411 - State v. Kennedy

2. “"... [t] he combination of gross population statistics, voter registration rolls, and a profile of jurors who actually sat on grand juries that convened .... provided the district court with a reliable measure for computing on the basis of absolute disparities the degree of under-representation of women and African-Americans in the position of foreperson on grand juries in Calcasieu Parish and for drawing an inference of discriminatory intent therefrom."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 846 So. 2d 114 - State v. Fleming

3. “This pre-qualification of venire members, according to neutral criteria, does arguably suggest that eligible population statistics might generally be more precise than gross population statistics in calculating the degree of under-representation of minorities in the grand jury venire, for example. In this vein, our courts of appeal have generally required that eligible population statistics be presented to prove jury discrimination claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 926 F. Supp. 2d 841 - Woodfox v. Cain