Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1.the reason given for the peremptory challenge is not related to the facts of the case; 2. there was a lack of questioning to the challenged juror or a lack of meaningful questions; 3. disparate treatment, i.e., persons with the same or similar characteristics as the challenged juror were not struck; 4. disparate examination of members of the venire, i.e., questioning a challenged juror so as to evoke a certain response without asking the same question of other panel members; and 5. an explanation based on a group bias where the group trait is not shown to apply to the challenged juror specifically.”

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

2. “Batson requires the trial judge to embrace a participatory role in voir dire, noting the subtle nuance of both verbal and nonverbal communication from each member of the venire .... The trial judge is present during voir dire and is best able to observe the demeanor and tenor of voice of the venireperson .... Accordingly, although a prosecutor gives a race-neutral explanation, the trial judge, based upon all the evidence and his observations and experience, may determine whether or not the explanation is artificial or pretextual.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haynes v. Quarterman

3. “(1) he or she is a member of a cognizable racial group; (2) the State exercised its peremptory challenges to eliminate, from the venire, members of the accused’s race; and (3) the facts and other pertinent occurrences raise an inference that the State used peremptory strikes to exclude venire persons on account of race.”

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