Ad
related to: batson challenge in civil case law search free pdfcourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. [1] Established by Batson v.Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge [2] prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
In the landmark case of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), the Supreme Court reversed a criminal conviction because of the prosecutor's racially motivated use of peremptory challenges. [171] There are three steps to a Batson inquiry. First, the party opposing the use of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie case.
When a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the government may challenge the patent’s validity Roe v. Wade: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Abortion, due process, privacy Doe v. Bolton: 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Restrictions on abortion United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. 410 U.S. 224 (1973)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. [1] The court had previously held in Batson v.
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. [1] Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case.
In Hernandez, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the peremptory exclusion of two Hispanic jurors was tantamount to exclusion because of race—and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.The case is recognized as expanding a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike based on a juror's ethnicity. [1]