9 Md. App. 143 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The essential nature of the peremptory challenge is that it is one exercised without a reason stated, without inquiry and without being subject to the court’s control ____ While challenges for cause permit rejection of jurors on a narrowly specified, provable and legally cognizable basis of partiality, the peremptory permits rejection for a real or imagined partiality that is less easily designated or demonstrable____ It is often exercised upon the ‘sudden impressions and unaccountable prejudices we are apt to conceive upon the bare looks and gestures of another,’ ... upon a juror’s ‘habits and associations,’ ... or upon the feeling that ‘the bare question [of a juror’s] indifference may sometimes provoke a resentment,’ ... It is no less frequently exercised on grounds normally thought irrelevant to legal proceedings or official action, namely, the race, religion, nationality, occupation or affiliations of people summoned for jury duty. For the question a prosecutor or defense counsel must decide is not whether a juror of a particular race or nationality is in fact partial, but whether one from a different group is less likely to be.” (Citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 74 Md. App. 353 - St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Smith · 20 Md. App. 201 - Spencer v. State

2. ““While challenges for cause permit rejection of jurors on a narrowly specified, provable and legally cognizable basis of partiality, the peremptory permits rejection for a real or imagined partiality that is less easily designated or demonstrable. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 70 . It is often exercised upon the ‘sudden impressions and unaccountable prejudices we are apt to conceive upon the bare looks and gestures of another,’ Lewis, [v. United States 146 U. S. 370 ], supra, at 376, upon a juror’s ‘habits and associations,’ Hayes v. Missouri, supra, at 70, or upon the feeling that ‘the bare questioning [a juror’s] indifference may sometimes provoke a resentment,’ Lewis, supra, at 376 . * * * Hence veniremen are not always judged solely as individuals for the purpose of exercising peremptory challenges. Rather they are challenged in light of the limited knowledge counsel has of them, which may include their group affiliations, in the context of the case to be tried.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 15 Md. App. 462 - Pearson v. State

3. ““The essential nature of the peremptory challenge is that it is one exercised without a rea•son stated, without inquiry and without being subject to the ’court’s control.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brice v. State