93 Md. App. 89 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Burch v. State (1997), Davis v. State (1993)
2 federal appellate · 32 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Irvin v. Dowd · Wainwright v. Witt · Hernandez v. New York
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... and would such condition make it impossible (or difficult) to return a fair and impartial verdict based only upon the evidence in this case?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““1) ... whether any of the prospective jurors had any knowledge or information about this particular case[;] 2) ... whether any of the jurors knew a) the [Defendant], b) defense counsel, c) the assistant state’s attorney, d) Officer Andrew Bratcher, the chief police investigator and only State’s witness; or e) Mary Easley, a witness for the defense[;] 3) ... whether any of the jurors ‘has been or ... has a close relative who has either been the victim of or has been charged with or convicted of a drug related crime[;]’ 4) ... whether any of the jurors is ‘likely to give more or less weight to the testimony of a police officer merely because that person is a police officer!;]’ 5) ... whether any of the jurors ‘knows Of anything that would keep him or her from giving a fair and impartial verdict in this case!;]’ 6) ... whether any of the jurors ‘knows of any reason why he or she should not sit on the jury in this case.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State““There is, however, an opposing school of thought that looks upon such indulgence as errant, if not grotesque, foolishness____ In terms of the profligate waste of precious courtroom and human resources, it looks upon any fractional gain from unlimited voir dire as a minimally incremental benefit that soon passes the point of diminishing returns. In a world of finite resources, if the fabled ‘day in court’ is permitted casually to multiply into twenty days in court, the inevitable consequence is that, by the inexorable law of mathematics, nineteen other litigants are denied any time in court at all.... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State
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.