State v. Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; (4) The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court. . . . As explained by our Supreme Court; When a juror expresses a predisposition as to the outcome of a trial, a challenge for cause should be granted. Yet, if after subsequent questioning, or rehabilitation, the juror exhibits the ability to disregard previous views and make a decision based on the evidence presented at trial, the challenge is properly denied. Id. When assessing whether a challenge for cause should be granted, the district judge must look at the juror's responses during his or her entire testimony, not just "correct" isolated answers or, for that matter, "incorrect," isolated answers. (citations omitted) State v. Lindsey, supra 948 So.2d at 107, 108 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 961 So. 2d 516 - State v. Mickel · 3 So. 3d 685 - State v. Eason

2. “[A] challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably inferred.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 So. 3d 71 - State v. Washington · 999 So. 2d 1156 - State v. Jones

3. “), the potential juror has demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 999 So. 2d 1156 - State v. Jones · 241 So. 3d 542 - State v. Hutsell