Barrow v. State (1977)
green
· 82 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 13 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197720012026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Davis v. State (1978)
See Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U. S. 31 (1975); Young v. State, 239 Ga. 53, 55 ( 236 SE2d 1 ) (1977); Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 164 ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977).
green
State v. Ramseur (1987)
See, e.g., Preston v. Mandeville, 428 F. 2d 1392 (5th Cir.1970) (29.3% of the relevant population, but only 15% of the master juror list, was black; 14.3% disparity sufficient to make out a prima facie case); Stephens v. Cox, 449 F. 2d 657 (4th Cir.1971) (over the time period studied, black population was 36 and 34%, but only 14.64 and 15.74% of those actually drawn for service were black; court ruled that approximately 10% or 2 to 1 disparity established a prima facie case …
green
Potts v. State (1990)
“The general rule is that the grand jury composition must be challenged prior to indictment unless the defendant shows he had no actual or constructive notice of the illegality.” Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 163 ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977).
green
Cochran v. State (1980)
In that decision, we adhered to the ruling in Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162,165 ( 236 SE2d 257 ), that to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, the appellant must prove that an “opportunity for discrimination existed from the source of the jury list, and . . . that use of that infected source produced a significant disparity between the percentages found present in the source and those actually appearing on the grand and traverse jury panels.” (Latter emphasis suppli…
green
Cochran v. State (1979)
First, the appellant must prove that an opportunity for discrimination existed from the source of the jury list, and, second, that the use of that infected source produced a significant disparity between the percentages found present in the source and those actually appearing on the grand and traverse jury panels.” Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 164 ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977).
green
Willis v. State (1979)
Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 168 ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977). 4.
green
Hudson v. State (1977)
White v. State, 230 Ga. 327 ( 196 SE2d 849 ) (1973); State v. Gould, 232 Ga. 844, 845 (2) ( 209 SE2d 312 ) (1974); Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 164 (2) ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977).
green
Brown v. State (1977)
We stated in Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 164 ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977) that "[t]he requirements for making out a prima facie case for discrimination are two-fold.
green
Michael Gene Berryhill, Cross-Appellant v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center,… (1988)
See Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 168 , 236 S.E.2d 257, 261-62 (1977); see also Robinson v. Kimbrough, 558 F.2d 773, 774 (5th Cir.1977) (en banc) 7 Bradley testified that the jury commissioners had followed the same procedure when compiling the prior master jury list and had achieved approximately the same level of representation of women 8 The question is a mixed question of fact and law.
green
Reese v. State (1999)
McMurray, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur. 1 Elrod v. State, 238 Ga. App. 80, 81-82 (1) ( 517 SE2d 805 ) (1999). 2 See generally Kinney v. State, 234 Ga. App. 733, 734-735 (1) ( 506 SE2d 441 ) (1998). 3 See Havron v. State, 234 Ga. App. 413, 414 (1) ( 506 SE2d 421 ) (1998). 4 See Hansley v. State, 267 Ga. 48, 49 (2) ( 472 SE2d 305 ) (1996); Jewell v. State, 261 Ga. 861, 862-863 (3) ( 413 SE2d 201 ) (1992); Lane v. State, 239 Ga. App. 230, 231 (2) (b) ( 520 SE2d 705 ) (1999); c…
green
Heard v. State (1985)
See Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162, 164 ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977).
green
Patterson v. State (1977)
See Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 162 ( 236 SE2d 257 ) (1977); Pass v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 192 ( 200 SE2d 720 ) (1973).
green
Hudson v. State (1988)
Compare Barrow, supra, with Pass v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 192 ( 200 SE2d 720 ).