State v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 210 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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the defendant must raise a Batson challenge with regard to one or more specific venirepersons struck by the state and identify the cognizable racial group to which the venireperson or persons belong. The trial court will then require the state to come forward with reasonably specific and clear race-neutral explanations for the strike. Assuming the prosecutor is able to articulate an acceptable reason for the strike, the defendant will then need to show that the state’s proffered reasons for the strikes were merely pretextual and that the strikes were racially motivated.”

   24 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mason · State v. Crawford

2. “[t]he elevated protection ... of the rights of individuals to serve as jurors may extend beyond racial discrimination to religious, gender-based, or ethnic discrimination as well, either under the United States or the Missouri Constitutions. Interestingly, the Missouri Constitution may require greater protection of the right of an individual to serve on a petit jury than does the United States Constitution. While our Missouri Constitution includes similar equal protection language to that in the United States Constitution, stating: “that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law”; article I, section 2, it provides further and more specific rights to individuals regarding jury service. Article I, section 5, provides “that no person shall on account of his religious persuasion or belief ... be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror”.... Thus, whether Batson, Powers, Edmonson and McCollum directly prohibit the use of peremptory strikes based upon religion or sex, they certainly suggest such a result when coupled with Missouri’s Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Strong v. State

3. “Any facts or circumstances that detract from or lend credénce to the prosecutor’s proffered explanation are, therefore, rel-evant_ The degree of logical relevance between the proffered explanation and the case to be tried in terms of the kind of crime charged, the nature of the evidence to be adduced, and the potential punishment if the defendant is convicted is likewise important. The prosecutor’s demeanor or statement’s during voir dire, as well as the demeanor of the excluded venirepersons should be considered. The court’s past experiences with the prosecutor might also be relevant. Objective factors such as the conditions prevailing in the community and the race of the defendant, the victim, and the material witnesses, are also worthy of consideration. ... [T]he state’s failure to use all its strikes against venirepersons of a racial minority, or the presence of a racial minority on the defendant’s jury, are relevant factors for consideration only to the extent that they indicate that race was not the prosecutor’s motive for the challenged strikes.”

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