Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stasi v. Truman Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences2021“One of the differences between a peremptory strike and a challenge for cause is that, in choosing to exercise a peremptory strike, an attorney or party ‘is allowed a subjective evaluation of the honesty and accuracy of the statement of the venireperson.’” Id. (quoting State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 368 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). “[T]he exercise of peremptory challenges is the product of the subjective analyses of a wide variety of character and personality traits perceived by counsel. 2012One of the differences between a peremptory strike and a challenge for cause is that, in choosing to exercise a peremptory strike, an attorney or party “is allowed a subjective evaluation of the honesty and accuracy of the statement of the venireperson.” State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 368 (Mo.App.2010), cert. denied; — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2115 , 179 L.Ed.2d 910 (2011). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Antwinegreen1 sentence2021Batson does not prohibit ‘hunch’ challenges so long as racial animus is not the motive.” State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51, 67 (Mo. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2017The State points to State v. Robinson, in which a prosecutor’s “hunch” that a prospective juror was sympathetic to the defendant was adequate to support a peremptory strike because the factors relied on were race-neutral. 832 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (citing State v. Kemper, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992) (explaining that Batson permits prosecutors to “play hunches” if the factors relied on are race-neutral)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kempkergreen1 sentence2017The State points to State v. Robinson, in which a prosecutor’s “hunch” that a prospective juror was sympathetic to the defendant was adequate to support a peremptory strike because the factors relied on were race-neutral. 832 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (citing State v. Kemper, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992) (explaining that Batson permits prosecutors to “play hunches” if the factors relied on are race-neutral)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dowgreen1 sentence2013“One of the differences between a peremptory strike and a challenge for cause is that, in choosing to exercise a peremptory strike, an attorney or party ‘is allowed a subjective evaluation of the honesty and accuracy of the statement of the venireperson.’ ” State v. Dow, 375 S.W.3d 845, 850 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
OZARK FIRE PROTECTION, INC. v. Franklingreen1 sentence2012Hence, “[b]eeause weighing the legitimacy of the State’s explanation for a peremptory strike is, by nature, a subjective exercise, ‘we place great reliance in the trial court’s judgment.’ ” State v. Brown, 246 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Mo.App.2008) (quoting Morrow, 968 S.W.2d at 114 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Morrow
green
2 sentences2021“One of the differences between a peremptory strike and a challenge for cause is that, in choosing to exercise a peremptory strike, an attorney or party ‘is allowed a subjective evaluation of the honesty and accuracy of the statement of the venireperson.’” Id. (quoting State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 368 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). “[T]he exercise of peremptory challenges is the product of the subjective analyses of a wide variety of character and personality traits perceived by counsel. 2012Hence, “[b]eeause weighing the legitimacy of the State’s explanation for a peremptory strike is, by nature, a subjective exercise, ‘we place great reliance in the trial court’s judgment.’ ” State v. Brown, 246 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Mo.App.2008) (quoting Morrow, 968 S.W.2d at 114 ). | 2 | 2012–2021 |
Smith v. Illinois
neutral
1 sentence2012One of the differences between a peremptory strike and a challenge for cause is that, in choosing to exercise a peremptory strike, an attorney or party “is allowed a subjective evaluation of the honesty and accuracy of the statement of the venireperson.” State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 368 (Mo.App.2010), cert. denied; — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2115 , 179 L.Ed.2d 910 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Rollins v. Missouri
green
1 sentence2012One of the differences between a peremptory strike and a challenge for cause is that, in choosing to exercise a peremptory strike, an attorney or party “is allowed a subjective evaluation of the honesty and accuracy of the statement of the venireperson.” State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353, 368 (Mo.App.2010), cert. denied; — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2115 , 179 L.Ed.2d 910 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1995Batson, 476 U.S. at 89 , 106 S.Ct. at 1719 . 1995Batson, 476 U.S. at 89 , 106 S.Ct. at 1719 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.