820 So. 2d 471 - State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the only single black male on the panel with no children.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 888 So. 2d 329 - State v. Givens · 871 So. 2d 483 - State v. Alexander

2. “[T]he fact that potential jurors are challenged on the basis of a claimed bias, without being questioned about such a bias, `raises a strong inference that they were excluded on the basis of race alone.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Burgess · 942 So. 2d 484 - State v. Snyder

3. “Both in this state and throughout the nation, the law is firmly settled that peremptory strikes may not be based on race in either criminal or civil cases. La. C. Cr. P. art. 795(c). If it appears that one party is using its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner, the other party may raise the issue by making what has come to be known as a Batson objection. In several assignments of error, the defendant argues that the state exercised its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). In Batson v. Kentucky, supra , the United States Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids the use of peremptory strikes to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or the assumption that members of a certain race will be unable to impartially consider the case before them. The Court concluded that such discriminatory practices in the use of peremptory challenges denies a defendant equal protection of the law and unconstitutionally discriminates against the potential juror in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 84-89 , 106 S.Ct. at 1716-19 . To assure such discrimination does not occur, the Court, in Batson , established a three-part framework to be employed in evaluating an equal protection challenge to a prosecutor's use of a peremptory strike. First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing of discrimination in the prosecutor's use of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 940 So. 2d 61 - State v. Jones