State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2016
15 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 Strickland v. Washington · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Ross v. Oklahoma · Indelicato v. United States · Bullock v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A question of potential bias arises when a prospective juror has been the victim of a similar crime. When such a question arises, the trial court must probe to determine whether the prospective juror is, in fact, impartial despite the past experience. This is generally accomplished by the trial court simply asking if the juror can be impartial. ■ If, after probing the prospective juror’s state of mind, the trial court is satisfied that the juror can view and weigh the evidence impartially, the inquiry is at an end.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[1] If you or a member of your family were involved in a ease such as the one before you, would you be willing to have your case or theirs tried by eight people in the same frame of mind as you are now in? [2] Possessing the state of mind that you have, is there anything that would prevent any of you from acting fairly and impartially without prejudice to the substantial rights of either party in this ease? [3] Is there any reason known to any of you why you could not try the case fairly and impartially upon any evidence and without any bias for or against either party to the action? [4] From your answers, I understand that each of you individually now declares to me that you can listen attentively to the evidence, can apply the law to the facts which you may find to exist and can reach a verdict which is fair and impartial as to each party in this controversy. Are there any of you who for any reason feel that you cannot?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ricketts v. Carter“The first requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error be “plain,” i.e., from our examination of the record, we must be able to say that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error.... The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of [a party], i.e., that the error be harmful.”
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.