Emerson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Chambers v. State (1993), Camacho v. State (1993)
25 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 · Hernandez v. New York · Ex Parte Branch · Whitsey v. State · Keeton v. State
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“applied a group bias without inquiring whether it applied to [Beasley or Hall] specifically.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walker v. State · Grant v. State“After a prosecutor gives nondiscriminatory reasons for striking prospective minority jurors from the venire, the trial judge must determine whether these facially neutral explanations are contrived to avoid admitting acts of discrimination. Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861, 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), citing Ex Parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987); Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707, at 716 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). This must be done because a prosecutor, although not intentionally discriminating, may try to find reasons other than race to challenge a black juror, when race may be his primary factor in deciding to strike the juror. Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d, at 868 . The trial judge as supervisor of the voir dire is in a position to readily perceive discrepancies during the jury selection process....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Camacho v. State“1. The reason for the peremptory challenge is not related to the facts of the case; 2. there was a lack of questioning to the challenged juror or a lack of meaningful questions; 3. disparate treatment in that persons with the same or similar characteristics were not struck; 4. disparate examination in that a challenged juror was questioned so as to evoke a certam response whereas other panel members were not asked the same question; and 5. an explanation based on a group bias where the group trait is not shown to apply specifically to the challenged juror.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Musick 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.