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 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smocumgreen2 sentences2016Defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of establishing that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner (see generally People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 421 [2003]). 2016Defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of establishing that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner (see generally People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 421 [2003]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Maygreen2 sentences2016Defendant’s assertion that “there wasn’t anything obvious ... in her responses that would seem to make her favorable to the defense,” “standing alone, [is] generally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination” (People v MacShane, 11 NY3d 841, 842 [2008]; see People v May, 125 AD3d 1465, 1466 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1204 [2015]). 2016Defendant’s assertion that “there wasn’t anything obvious ... in her responses that would seem to make her favorable to the defense,” “standing alone, [is] generally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination” (People v MacShane, 11 NY3d 841, 842 [2008]; see People v May, 125 AD3d 1465, 1466 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1204 [2015]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. MacShanegreen2 sentences2016Defendant’s assertion that “there wasn’t anything obvious ... in her responses that would seem to make her favorable to the defense,” “standing alone, [is] generally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination” (People v MacShane, 11 NY3d 841, 842 [2008]; see People v May, 125 AD3d 1465, 1466 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1204 [2015]). 2016Defendant’s assertion that “there wasn’t anything obvious ... in her responses that would seem to make her favorable to the defense,” “standing alone, [is] generally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination” (People v MacShane, 11 NY3d 841, 842 [2008]; see People v May, 125 AD3d 1465, 1466 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1204 [2015]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2004Although a prima facie showing of discrimination can be made based on the challenge of only one juror (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422 [2003]; People v Henderson, 305 AD2d 940, 940 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 582 [2003]), here defendant failed to allege facts or circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge for a discriminatory purpose and, therefore, he did not satisfy the first step of the Batson analysis (see People v Henderson, supra at 941). 2004Although a prima facie showing of discrimination can be made based on the challenge of only one juror (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422 [2003]; People v Henderson, 305 AD2d 940, 940 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 582 [2003]), here defendant failed to allege facts or circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge for a discriminatory purpose and, therefore, he did not satisfy the first step of the Batson analysis (see People v Henderson, supra at 941). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Skervingreen1 sentence2023In our view, County Court correctly determined that "defendant failed to allege facts or circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge for a discriminatory purpose and, therefore, he did not satisfy the first step of the Batson analysis" ( People v Skervin , 13 AD3d 661, 662 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]; see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d at 665 ; People v Anthony , 152 AD3d at 1050 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Heckergreen1 sentence2023In our view, County Court correctly determined that "defendant failed to allege facts or circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge for a discriminatory purpose and, therefore, he did not satisfy the first step of the Batson analysis" ( People v Skervin , 13 AD3d 661, 662 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]; see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d at 665 ; People v Anthony , 152 AD3d at 1050 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dolphygreen1 sentence2004Moreover, the prosecutor’s explanation, which does not have to be persuasive or plausible (see People v Starks, supra at 622), but need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), was race neutral and, therefore, overcame any inference of discrimination, satisfying the People’s burden of production under step two of the Batson analysis (see People v Dorsey, 3 AD3d 590, 591 [2004]; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 683 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 872 [1999]; People v Starks, supra). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dorseygreen1 sentence2004Moreover, the prosecutor’s explanation, which does not have to be persuasive or plausible (see People v Starks, supra at 622), but need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), was race neutral and, therefore, overcame any inference of discrimination, satisfying the People’s burden of production under step two of the Batson analysis (see People v Dorsey, 3 AD3d 590, 591 [2004]; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 683 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 872 [1999]; People v Starks, supra). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Starksgreen2 sentences2004Moreover, the prosecutor’s explanation, which does not have to be persuasive or plausible (see People v Starks, supra at 622), but need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), was race neutral and, therefore, overcame any inference of discrimination, satisfying the People’s burden of production under step two of the Batson analysis (see People v Dorsey, 3 AD3d 590, 591 [2004]; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 683 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 872 [1999]; People v Starks, supra). 2004Moreover, the prosecutor’s explanation, which does not have to be persuasive or plausible (see People v Starks, supra at 622), but need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), was race neutral and, therefore, overcame any inference of discrimination, satisfying the People’s burden of production under step two of the Batson analysis (see People v Dorsey, 3 AD3d 590, 591 [2004]; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 683 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 872 [1999]; People v Starks, supra). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Anthony
green
1 sentence2023In our view, County Court correctly determined that "defendant failed to allege facts or circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge for a discriminatory purpose and, therefore, he did not satisfy the first step of the Batson analysis" ( People v Skervin , 13 AD3d 661, 662 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]; see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d at 665 ; People v Anthony , 152 AD3d at 1050 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2023It follows that the burden did not shift to the People to articulate a race-neutral explanation for the challenge, and County Court correctly refrained from assessing whether the explanation proffered by [*5]the People did so ( see People v Skervin , 13 AD3d at 662 ; People v Henderson , 305 AD2d at 941 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Skervin
green
1 sentence2023In our view, County Court correctly determined that "defendant failed to allege facts or circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge for a discriminatory purpose and, therefore, he did not satisfy the first step of the Batson analysis" ( People v Skervin , 13 AD3d 661, 662 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]; see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d at 665 ; People v Anthony , 152 AD3d at 1050 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.