Teague v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 4 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. “[T]he purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power— to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge_ This prophylactic vehicle is not provided if the jury pool is made up of only special segments of the populace or if large, distinctive groups are excluded from the pool. Community participation in the administration of the criminal law, moreover, is not only consistent with our democratic heritage but is also critical to public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Davis v. Warden · Hursey Davis v. Warden, Joliet Correctional Institution at Stateville Michael Lane, Director, Department of Corrections, State of Illinois

2. “in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime and whoever the defendant or the victim may be,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 742 F. Supp. 472 - Williams v. Chrans · Teague v. Lane

3. “'be selected as individuals, on the basis of individual qualifications, and not as members of a race.' " Id., at 204, 85 S.Ct., at 827 (quoting Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 , 286, 70 S.Ct. 629, 631, 94 L.Ed. 839 (1950) (plurality opinion)). Discussing how a defendant might prove purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection, the Court stated: 83 "In the light of the purpose of the peremptory system and the function it serves in a pluralistic society in connection with the institution of jury trial, we cannot hold that the Constitution requires an examination of the prosecutor's reasons for the exercise of his challenges in any given case. The presumption in any particular case must be that the prosecutor is using the State's challenges to obtain a fair and impartial jury to try the case before the court. The presumption is not overcome and the prosecutor therefore subjected to examination by allegations that in the case at hand all Negroes were removed from the jury or that they were removed because they were Negroes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Teague v. Lane