824 So. 2d 1089 - State v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) defendant must have been represented by counsel at the earlier hearing; (2) the witness testified under oath; (3) the witness was cross-examined or else there was a valid waiver of the right to cross-examination; (4) at the time of the trial, the witness (whether out of state or not) is unavailable or unable to testify; and (5) the state has made a good faith diligent effort to obtain the presence of the witness, including by its out-of-state subpoena, powers where appropriate.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Galle · State v. Landrieu

2. “(1) The juror lacks a qualification required by law; (2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; (3) The relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or enmity between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel, is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict; (4) The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court; or (5) The juror served on the grand jury that found the indictment, or on a petit jury that once tried the defendant for the same or any other offense.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4 So. 3d 175 - State v. George · 929 So. 2d 789 - State v. Roberson

3. “It is not proper for counsel to interrogate prospective jurors concerning their reaction to evidence which might be received at trial.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Louisiana v. Lee Turner, Jr. · 87 So. 3d 285 - State v. Cooley