State v. Crespin’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Batson v. Kentucky (1986), Ex Parte Branch (1987)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Swain v. State of Alabama · Taylor v. Louisiana · Castaneda v. Partida · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler · Peters v. Kiff
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a party believes his opponent is using his peremptory challenges to strike jurors on the ground of group bias alone, he must raise the point in timely fashion and make a prima facie case of such discrimination to the satisfaction of the court. First, as in the case at bar, he should make as complete a record of the circumstances as is feasible. Second, he must establish that the persons excluded are members of a cognizable group within the meaning of the representative cross-section rule. [Footnote omitted.] Third, from all the circumstances of the case he must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias. Upon presentation of this and similar evidence — in the absence, of course, of the jury — the court must determine whether a reasonable inference arises that peremptory challenges are being used on the ground of group bias alone.... If the court finds that a prima facie case has been made, the burden shifts to the other party to show if he can that the peremptory challenges in question were not predicated on group bias alone. [Footnote omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis“in their state courts. People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258 , 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P. 2d 748 (1978); Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 , 387 N.E. 2d 499 (1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed. 2d 110 (1979); State v. Crespin, 94 N.M. 486 , 612 P. 2d 716 (Ct.App. 1980). See also Commonwealth v. Martin, 461 Pa. 289, 299 , 336 A. 2d 290, 295 (1975) (Nix, J., dissenting). Also, a good deal of commentary has been written on the subject. See Note,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Prosecutor's Exercise of the Peremptory Challenge to Exclude Non-White Jurors: A Valued Common Law Privilege in Conflict with the Equal Protection Clause,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.