Jones v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
987 F.2d 960 · 1993
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Purkett v. Elem (1995), Tankleff v. Da Senkowski (1998)
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Witt · Swain v. State of Alabama · 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [I]f tension exists between the “old tradition” of unconsidered preference for unfettered use of peremptory challenges and the still relatively “young tradition” of meaningful safeguards against invidious application of racial stereotypes, then the latter consideration must prevail. If the former consideration still prevailed, the “price” would be the jeopardizing of the integrity of the judicial process and the stigmatization of venirepersons of color. And such a price would be “too high.” [Georgia v. McCollum, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 2358, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992) ] (citing Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2077 , 2088, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e doubt the significance of including a single black on a panel if, at the same time, the government used most of its peremptory challenges ... to strike blacks with backgrounds similar to the white jurors ultimately selected.”). 11 . We realize that a prosecutor might couch a preference for a more homogeneous jury by accentuating an innocuous characteristic (e.g., geography, age, socio-economic status, marital status) which, in the interest of so-called”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) how many members of the cognizable racial group are in the venire panel from which the petit jury is chosen (2) the nature of the crime (3) the race of the defendant and the victim (4) the pattern of strikes against racial group jurors in the particular venire (5) the prosecutor’s statements and questions during selection.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.