McCray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]here is almost always going to be some variance among prospective jurors who are struck; therefore, this alone does not establish heterogeneity of the struck veniremembers so as to support an inference of discrimination. The question, as noted in both Ex parte Branch [, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1987),] and Ex parte Trawick , [ 698 So.2d 162 (Ala. 1997) ] is whether the struck jurors shared only the characteristic at issue, in this case, [race]. The record here does not reflect that the [African-American veniremembers] struck shared only the characteristic of [race]. To the contrary, the record reflects that many of the [African-American veniremembers] shared similar characteristics other than [race]."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Russell v. State · Henderson v. State

2. “"[T]o the extent that the Houston County District Attorney's Office has a history of racial discrimination, that history is attenuated. 'The opinions reversing the Houston Circuit Court on Batson grounds date from 1991, [almost 24] years ago. The most recent of those opinions was published in 1998, [over 17] years ago.' Floyd [v. State] , 190 So.3d 940 , 971 [ (Ala.Crim.App.2007) ] (opinion on return to remand) (Welch, J., dissenting). See McCray v. State , 738 So.2d 911 , 914 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (reversing the judgment of the Houston County Circuit Court based on a Batson violation). Accordingly, although the Houston County District Attorney's Office has a history of using its peremptory strikes in an improper manner, this factor, based on the passage of time, does not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Townes v. State · Wilson v. State

3. ““1. Evidence that the ‘jurors in question share[d] only this one characteristic — their membership in the group— and that in all other respects they [were] as heterogeneous as the community as a whole.’ ... “2. A pattern of strikes against black jurors on the particular venire.... “3. The past conduct of the state’s attorney in using peremptory challenges to strike all blacks from the jury venire. “4. The type and manner of the state’s attorney’s questions and statements during voir dire, including nothing more than desultory voir dire. “5. The type and manner of questions directed to the challenged juror, including a lack of questions, or a lack of meaningful questions. “6. Disparate treatment of members of the jury venire with the same characteristics, or who answer a question in the same or similar manner.... “7. Disparate examination of members of the venire.... “8. Circumstantial evidence of intent may be proven by disparate impact where all or most of the challenges were used to strike blacks from the jury. “9. The state used peremptory challenges to dismiss all or most black jurors.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scheuing v. State · Townes v. State