Brown v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our reading of Batson alone compels our holding, for we believe the case does not suggest, and may not even authorize, the principle that courts must scrutinize every peremptory challenge to ensure that it does not tread on any right of the defendant. Batson states in so many words that it views the peremptory challenge as, in all but one instance, truly peremptory.... We are unwilling to make the momentous conceptual leap [the defendant] urges on us, a leap that would mean the practical elimination of the peremptory challenge as such. Neither Batson nor any other binding or instructive precedent supplies a writ for the conversion of every peremptory challenge to a challenge subject to judicial approval, and we have no confidence that such a conversion would better protect the principles our system of justice seeks to advance than does the current, and historic arrangement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Davis

2. “Two aggravating factors were submitted to the jury during sentencing. On the issue whether the murder was heinous, atrocious or cruel, [defense counsel] argued, “I think you’re going to answer that issue ‘yes’.” ... The second issue was whether the murder was part of a course of conduct involving violence to another person. Defense counsel argued, “Once again, I don’t think there is any question you’re going to answer it ‘yes’.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Smith v. Dixon

3. ““We have nothing but respect for the district court’s willingness to safeguard the rights of criminal defendants, and particularly those facing a death sentence. We disagree, however, that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments contain the right it [the district court] would extend to Brown, and therefore hold that a state may use its peremptory challenges to purge a jury of veniremen not excludable for cause under Wither-spoon”.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Hernandez v. State