921 So. 2d 226 - State v. Qualls’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than fifteen years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jamerson · 981 So. 2d 260 - State v. Chatman

2. “If the state tenders a race-neutral explanation, then the trial court must decide, in the final step of this three-part analysis, whether the defendant has established purposeful racial discrimination. To be facially valid, the prosecutor's explanation need not be persuasive or even plausible. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race-neutral. The proper inquiry, in this, the final step of the Batson analysis, is whether the defendant's proof, when weighed against the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral explanations, is sufficient to persuade the trial court that discriminatory intent is present. The ultimate burden of persuasion as to racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the peremptory challenge. The ultimate focus of the Batson inquiry is on the prosecutor's intent at the time of the strike. In resolving the ultimate inquiry before it—whether the proffered race-neutral explanation should be believed—the trial court should examine all of the evidence available. Patterns of strikes and other statements or actions by the prosecutor during voir dire are relevant and may support a finding of discriminatory intent. The trial court is in a position to observe firsthand the demeanor of the attorneys and venire persons, the nuances of questions asked, the racial composition of the venire and the general atmosphere of the voir dire that simply cannot be replicated from a cold tran”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 940 So. 2d 61 - State v. Jones

3. “C. No peremptory challenge made by the state or the defendant shall be based solely upon the race of the juror. If an objection is made that the state or defense has excluded a juror solely on the basis of race, and a prima facie case supporting that objection is made by the objecting party, the court may demand a satisfactory racially neutral reason for the exercise of the challenge, unless the court is satisfied that such reason is apparent from the voir dire examination of the juror. Such demand and disclosure, if required by the court, shall be made outside of the hearing of any juror or prospective juror.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 925 So. 2d 727 - State v. Lawrence