Vargas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Goode v. Shoukfeh (1997), City of Beaumont v. Bouillion (1995)
2 federal appellate · 82 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 · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Hernandez v. New York · Tompkins v. Texas
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Deference to trial court findings on the issue of discriminatory intent makes particular sense in this context because, as we noted in Batson , the finding ‘largely will turn on evaluation of credibility.’ 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21 , 106 S.Ct. at 1724, n. 21 . In the typical peremptory challenge inquiry, the decisive question will be whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed. There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge. As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’ Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 854 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), citing Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1038 , 104 S.Ct. 2885, 2892 , 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Shaw v. State · Benjamin v. State“While these reasons [given by the state] would seem stronger had the prosecutor individually questioned all of the stricken venirepersons, the reasons are not rendered racially impermissible simply because he did not do so. Defense counsel did not cross-examine the prosecutor or impeach him on any of his reasons, even when the prosecutor also mentioned white venirepersons whom he claimed he struck for similar reasons as he did venireperson Porter. Defense counsel did not present the trial judge with any comparison, general or detailed, of unchallenged white veni-repersons and the black venirepersons who were struck. There is nothing to show that the prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretextual. These reasons are racially neutral on their face.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Carter v. State · Victor v. State“not mentioned or offered into evidence by either side”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gibson v. State · 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.