opponent challenge (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

opponent challenge in Michigan

39 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 10 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Batson v. Kentuckygreen
scotus · 1986 · cited in 16 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2004–2026
2 sentences

2026“Finally, if the proponent provides a race-neutral explanation as a matter of law, the trial court must then determine whether the race-neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 337-338 . 2 Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ; 106 S Ct 1712 ; 90 L Ed 2d 69 (1986). -3- During voir dire, Carswell’s lawyer raised a challenge to the prosecution’s use of preemptory challenges.

2026“Finally, if the proponent provides a race-neutral explanation as a matter of law, the trial court must then determine whether the race-neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 337-338 . 2 Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ; 106 S Ct 1712 ; 90 L Ed 2d 69 (1986). -3- During voir dire, Carswell’s lawyer raised a challenge to the prosecution’s use of preemptory challenges.

216
Snyder v. Louisianagreen
scotus · 2008 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2019–2021
2 sentences

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race- neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error.[38] 34 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 35 Snyder v Louisiana, 552 US 472, 477 ; 128 S Ct 1203 ; 170 L Ed 2d 175 (2008). 36 Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 339 ; 123 S Ct 1029 ; 154 L Ed 2d 931 (2003). 37 Snyder, 552 US at 477 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 38 Knight, 473 Mich at 345 . 12 “Clear error exists if the revi

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race- neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error.[38] 34 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 35 Snyder v Louisiana, 552 US 472, 477 ; 128 S Ct 1203 ; 170 L Ed 2d 175 (2008). 36 Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 339 ; 123 S Ct 1029 ; 154 L Ed 2d 931 (2003). 37 Snyder, 552 US at 477 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 38 Knight, 473 Mich at 345 . 12 “Clear error exists if the revi

23
People v. Knightgreen
mich · 2005 · cited in 25 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2014–2026
2 sentences

2026“Finally, if the proponent provides a race-neutral explanation as a matter of law, the trial court must then determine whether the race-neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 337-338 . 2 Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ; 106 S Ct 1712 ; 90 L Ed 2d 69 (1986). -3- During voir dire, Carswell’s lawyer raised a challenge to the prosecution’s use of preemptory challenges.

2025“The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the opponent of the challenge is not required at Batson’s first step to actually prove discrimination.” Knight, 473 Mich at 336 .

125
People v. Ackleygreen
mich · 2015 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024In Ackley, 497 Mich at 389-391, 393 , defense counsel chose an unqualified expert who was an opponent of defense counsel’s theory, and failed to conduct research to secure suitable expert assistance.

11
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.green
scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005If the first step is at issue (whether the opponent of the challenge has satisfied his burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of 13 See, e.g., Miller-El I, supra at 339-340 (internal citations omitted): Credibility can be measured by, among other factors, . . . demeanor; by how reasonable, or how improbable, the explanations are; and by whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy. * * * “Deference to trial court findings on the issue of discriminatory intent makes particular sense in this context because, as we noted in Batson, the finding ‘largely will turn o

11
JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TBgreen
scotus · 1994 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See, e.g., J E B v Alabama ex rel T B, 511 US 127 , 142 n 13; 114 S Ct 1419 ; 128 L Ed 2d 89 (1994) (“The exclusion of even one juror for impermissible reasons harms that juror and undermines public confidence in the (continued…) 13 clear that the opponent of the challenge is not required at Batson’s first step to actually prove discrimination.

2005See, e.g., J E B v Alabama ex rel T B, 511 US 127 , 142 n 13; 114 S Ct 1419 ; 128 L Ed 2d 89 (1994) (“The exclusion of even one juror for impermissible reasons harms that juror and undermines public confidence in the (continued…) 13 clear that the opponent of the challenge is not required at Batson’s first step to actually prove discrimination.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
Hernandez v. New York green
scotus · 1991
2 sentences

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race- neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error.[38] 34 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 35 Snyder v Louisiana, 552 US 472, 477 ; 128 S Ct 1203 ; 170 L Ed 2d 175 (2008). 36 Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 339 ; 123 S Ct 1029 ; 154 L Ed 2d 931 (2003). 37 Snyder, 552 US at 477 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 38 Knight, 473 Mich at 345 . 12 “Clear error exists if the revi

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race- neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error.[38] 34 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 35 Snyder v Louisiana, 552 US 472, 477 ; 128 S Ct 1203 ; 170 L Ed 2d 175 (2008). 36 Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 339 ; 123 S Ct 1029 ; 154 L Ed 2d 931 (2003). 37 Snyder, 552 US at 477 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 38 Knight, 473 Mich at 345 . 12 “Clear error exists if the revi

52005–2021
Miller-El v. Cockrell green
scotus · 2003
2 sentences

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race- neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error.[38] 34 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 35 Snyder v Louisiana, 552 US 472, 477 ; 128 S Ct 1203 ; 170 L Ed 2d 175 (2008). 36 Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 339 ; 123 S Ct 1029 ; 154 L Ed 2d 931 (2003). 37 Snyder, 552 US at 477 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 38 Knight, 473 Mich at 345 . 12 “Clear error exists if the revi

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race- neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error.[38] 34 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 35 Snyder v Louisiana, 552 US 472, 477 ; 128 S Ct 1203 ; 170 L Ed 2d 175 (2008). 36 Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 339 ; 123 S Ct 1029 ; 154 L Ed 2d 931 (2003). 37 Snyder, 552 US at 477 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 38 Knight, 473 Mich at 345 . 12 “Clear error exists if the revi

42015–2021
Johnson v. California green
scotus · 2005
2 sentences

2021In Georgia v McCollum, the Supreme Court held that “the Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory 11 Johnson v California, 545 US 162, 168 ; 125 S Ct 2410 ; 162 L Ed 2d 129 (2005), quoting Batson, 476 US at 94 . 12 Johnson, 545 US at 170 (“[I]n describing the burden-shifting framework, we assumed in Batson that the trial judge would have the benefit of all relevant circumstances, including the prosecutor’s explanation, before deciding whether it was more likely than not that the challenge was impro

2021In Georgia v McCollum, the Supreme Court held that “the Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory 11 Johnson v California, 545 US 162, 168 ; 125 S Ct 2410 ; 162 L Ed 2d 129 (2005), quoting Batson, 476 US at 94 . 12 Johnson, 545 US at 170 (“[I]n describing the burden-shifting framework, we assumed in Batson that the trial judge would have the benefit of all relevant circumstances, including the prosecutor’s explanation, before deciding whether it was more likely than not that the challenge was impro

42005–2021
Purkett v. Elem green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

2021There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” 33 An evaluation of the 28 Knight, 473 Mich at 337-338 , citing Batson, 476 US at 98 . 29 Miller-El v Dretke, 545 US 231, 252 ; 125 S Ct 2317 ; 162 L Ed 2d 196 (2005). 30 Purkett, 514 US at 768 . 31 Batson, 476 US at 98 n 21. 32 Hernandez, 500 US at 365 . 33 Id. 11 attorney’s state of mind, demeanor, and credibility lies “peculiarly within [the] trial judge’s province.” 34 Likewise, the trial court must also evaluate “whether the juror’s demea

2021There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” 33 An evaluation of the 28 Knight, 473 Mich at 337-338 , citing Batson, 476 US at 98 . 29 Miller-El v Dretke, 545 US 231, 252 ; 125 S Ct 2317 ; 162 L Ed 2d 196 (2005). 30 Purkett, 514 US at 768 . 31 Batson, 476 US at 98 n 21. 32 Hernandez, 500 US at 365 . 33 Id. 11 attorney’s state of mind, demeanor, and credibility lies “peculiarly within [the] trial judge’s province.” 34 Likewise, the trial court must also evaluate “whether the juror’s demea

22021–2021
Miller-El v. Dretke green
scotus · 2005
2 sentences

2021There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” 33 An evaluation of the 28 Knight, 473 Mich at 337-338 , citing Batson, 476 US at 98 . 29 Miller-El v Dretke, 545 US 231, 252 ; 125 S Ct 2317 ; 162 L Ed 2d 196 (2005). 30 Purkett, 514 US at 768 . 31 Batson, 476 US at 98 n 21. 32 Hernandez, 500 US at 365 . 33 Id. 11 attorney’s state of mind, demeanor, and credibility lies “peculiarly within [the] trial judge’s province.” 34 Likewise, the trial court must also evaluate “whether the juror’s demea

2021There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” 33 An evaluation of the 28 Knight, 473 Mich at 337-338 , citing Batson, 476 US at 98 . 29 Miller-El v Dretke, 545 US 231, 252 ; 125 S Ct 2317 ; 162 L Ed 2d 196 (2005). 30 Purkett, 514 US at 768 . 31 Batson, 476 US at 98 n 21. 32 Hernandez, 500 US at 365 . 33 Id. 11 attorney’s state of mind, demeanor, and credibility lies “peculiarly within [the] trial judge’s province.” 34 Likewise, the trial court must also evaluate “whether the juror’s demea

22021–2021
Flowers v. Mississippi green
scotus · 2019
2 sentences

2025Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race-neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error. [Estate of Carlsen by Carlsen v Southwest Mich Emergency Servs, PC, 338 Mich App 678 , 688; 980 NW2d 785 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a party may not exercise a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror solely on the basis of the person’s race.” People

2025Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race-neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error. [Estate of Carlsen by Carlsen v Southwest Mich Emergency Servs, PC, 338 Mich App 678 , 688; 980 NW2d 785 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a party may not exercise a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror solely on the basis of the person’s race.” People

12025–2025
King v. Michigan State Police Department green
michctapp · 2013
2 sentences

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race-neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error. [People v Knight, 473 Mich 324, 345 ; 701 NW2d 715 (2005).] A trial court’s finding “is clearly erroneous when no evidence supports the finding or, on the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” King v Mich State Police Dep’t, 303 Mich App 162, 185 ; 841 NW2d 914 (2013).

2021Finally, if the third step is at issue (the trial court’s determinations whether the race-neutral explanation is a pretext and whether the opponent of the challenge has proved purposeful discrimination), we review the trial court’s ruling for clear error. [People v Knight, 473 Mich 324, 345 ; 701 NW2d 715 (2005).] A trial court’s finding “is clearly erroneous when no evidence supports the finding or, on the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” King v Mich State Police Dep’t, 303 Mich App 162, 185 ; 841 NW2d 914 (2013).

12021–2021
People v. Bryant green
mich · 2012
2 sentences

2021The Batson Court directed trial courts to consider all relevant circumstances in deciding whether a prima facie showing has been made. [Citations omitted.] In People v Bryant, 491 Mich 575, 597 ; 822 NW2d 124 (2012), the Court stated that “to make a prima facie case of a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair-cross-section requirement,” a defendant is required to show: (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of su

2021The Batson Court directed trial courts to consider all relevant circumstances in deciding whether a prima facie showing has been made. [Citations omitted.] In People v Bryant, 491 Mich 575, 597 ; 822 NW2d 124 (2012), the Court stated that “to make a prima facie case of a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair-cross-section requirement,” a defendant is required to show: (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of su

12021–2021
Rolla Mitchell v. Kalamazoo Anesthesiology Pc green
michctapp · 2017
1 sentence

2019Mitchell, 321 Mich App at 155 .

12019–2019
People v. Lopez green
michctapp · 2014
2 sentences

2015However, only Rogers—not Briggs-Cody—raises this issue on appeal. 3 “A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Lopez, 305 Mich App 686, 693 ; 854 NW2d 205 (2014) (citation omitted).

2015However, only Rogers—not Briggs-Cody—raises this issue on appeal. 3 “A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Lopez, 305 Mich App 686, 693 ; 854 NW2d 205 (2014) (citation omitted).

12015–2015
People v. Bell green
mich · 2005
1 sentence

2015“Since Batson, the Supreme Court has commented that -5- the establishment of purposeful discrimination ‘comes down to whether the trial court finds the . . . race-neutral explanations to be credible.’ ” Bell, 473 Mich at 283 , quoting Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 339 ; 123 S Ct 1029 ; 154 L Ed 2d 931 (2003).

12015–2015
Powers v. Ohio green
scotus · 1991
2 sentences

2010Id. at 94-97 .

2010Id. at 98 .

12010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b (11) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316 (10) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12 (9) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.26 (7) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f (5) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b (5) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529 (5) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157a (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.34 (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.317 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 54 (1968–2026) MI 39 (2004–2026) NV 17 (1996–2022) NY 14 (1958–2010) IN 13 (1972–2011) SC 11 (2014–2026) IL 10 (1981–2009) TX 9 (1989–2021) LA 6 (2007–2022) OH 6 (2002–2018) PA 5 (1962–1999) MN 5 (1992–2017) ND 4 (1996–2004) WA 4 (1983–2017) MD 3 (1992–2002) FL 3 (1968–2012) CO 3 (1996–2017) KY 3 (2002–2014) NJ 2 (2005–2005) NM 2 (2015–2015) WY 2 (1935–1957) AR 2 (2004–2026) AZ 2 (1969–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check