846 So. 2d 114 - State v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To demonstrate an equal protection violation based on discrimination in the selection of the grand jury itself or the foreperson, a defendant is required to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Under the seminal case, Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 , 97 S.Ct. 1272 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977), a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination is established by proving “over a significant period of time” that “substantial under-representation” has occurred of a “recognizable distinct class, singled out for different treatment under the laws.” ... One method of establishing such purposeful discrimination is by satisfying the following three-prong test: 1. Those alleged to be discriminated against belong to an identifiable group in the general population. 2. The selection process is subject to abuse according to subjective criteria. 3. The degree of underrepresentation, as shown by | ¡^comparing the proportion of the group at issue found in the general population to the proportion called to serve.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 879 So. 2d 870 - State v. Newman

2. “it apparently was not motivated by a desire to discriminate purposefully against African-Americans, nor was it apparently an attempt expressly to limit the number of African-Americans who could serve.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 915 So. 2d 291 - State v. Juniors

3. “an even mix of people from backgrounds and races, and things like that.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 915 So. 2d 291 - State v. Juniors