United States v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 103 · 1988
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 243 - People v. Ayala (2000), Goode v. Shoukfeh (1997)
26 federal appellate · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 · Griffith v. Kentucky · United States v. Davis · United States v. Thompson · United States v. Farnsworth
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] prosecutor is justified in striking jurors that he or she perceives to be inattentive or uninterested.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“if the court decides to consider any notes, other documents, or statements pertaining to the prosecutor's explanation, we, like the Seventh Circuit, counsel that a trial court should ordinarily conduct adversary, rather than ex parte, proceedings”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We conclude that the district court’s ex parte examination of the prosecutor’s notes does not warrant reversal. The Supreme Court in Batson expressly refrained from fashioning a procedure to be followed by the trial court in making its determination. 476 U.S. at 99-100 n. 24 [ 106 S.Ct. at 1724-25 n. 24], The Sixth Circuit has approved ex parte submission of explanations by the government once the defendant has made out a prima facie case of discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. United States v. Davis, 809 F.2d 1194 (6th Cir.1987). We, however, agree with the Ninth Circuit that the important rights guaranteed by Batson deserve the full protection of the adversarial process except where compelling reasons requiring secrecy are shown. United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254 , 1258-59 (9th Cir.1987). Like that circuit, we recognize that instances may arise in which to reveal the grounds for striking a juror would unduly prejudice the government. For example, an ex parte hearing may be necessary if by coincidence the government is conducting an undercover investigation of the juror’s likely involvement in other crimes. But the government must make a substantial showing of necessity to justify excluding the defendant from this important stage of the prosecution. Thompson, 827 F.2d at 1258 . Confronted by a similar situation — an ex parte consideration of the prosecutor’s explanation — the Seventh Circuit concluded that the procedure ‘passed constitutional muster.’ Neverthe”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.