Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Amos v. Scott (1995), Montanez v. State (2006)
4 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Thomas v. State · Whitsey v. State · Keeton v. State
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence presented to the trial judge during voir dire and the Batson hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McDuffie v. State · Adair v. State““Moreover, a comparative analysis is not a new or different legal theory, from the Bat-son claim asserted in the trial court, upon which a defendant seeks relief on appeal. As stated on original submission, the comparative analysis is merely the argument accompanying the Batson claim. See p. 145. The legal theory which the defendant asserts during the voir dire process, that the prosecutor has engaged in purposeful racial discrimination, is the same legal contention raised on appeal. The comparative analysis is but an analytical tool that the appellant uses on appeal to show that the trial judge’s ruling on his the Batson claim was not supported by the voir dire record and thus was clearly erroneous; it is not the legal theory upon which relief is sought. The legal claim is the same at trial and on appeal: the State used racially motivated peremptoiy challenges during its jury selection.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“at trial). In other words, the authority allowing for a comparative analysis for the first time on appeal does not excuse defense counsel from making any rebuttal argument whatsoever. Our consideration should end here. However, even when we compare the information in the juror cards, appellant's argument still fails. a. Juror Number 7-Mr. Baldwin With regard to juror number 7, Mr. Baldwin, the prosecutor explained,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Adair v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.