State v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “determine if the opponent of the strike has carried the ultimate burden of proving purposeful discrimination.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 So. 3d 136 - State v. Pierce · 201 So. 3d 400 - State v. Broussard

2. “This explanation does not have to be persuasive, or even plausible, but must be more than a mere affirmation of good faith or assumption that the challenged juror would be “partial to the defendant because of their shared race.” [Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995)]; [Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991)]; Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . At the second step of the Batson inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the striking party’s explanation. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 ; Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ; Sparks, 68 So.3d at 474 . Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the striking party’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race-neutral. Id.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 143 So. 3d 1237 - State v. Nora · 131 So. 3d 947 - State v. Celestine

3. “In step three of the Batson analysis, the court must then determine whether the objecting party has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Miller-El v. Dretke , 545 U.S. 231 , 125 S.Ct. 2317 , 2331-32, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) ; Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . This final step involves evaluating "the persuasiveness of the justification" proffered by the striking party, but "the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike." Purkett [ v. Elem ], 514 U.S. [765,] 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769 [ 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) ].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Anderson · State of Louisiana v. Johnny Lee Harris