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.
23 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Victor v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Counsel merely stated he was ―making an objection for the record.‖ In Montgomery and Victor, our sister courts found that ―a veniremember’s belief in rehabilitation as the primary goal of punishment is a race-neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge.‖ Montgomery, 198 S.W.3d at 76 ; Victor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 2008Counsel merely stated he was making an objection for the record. In Montgomery and Victor , our sister courts found that a veniremembers belief in rehabilitation as the primary goal of punishment is a race-neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. Montgomery , 198 S.W.3d at 76 ; Victor v. State , 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. refd). | 4 | 4 |
Adanandus v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Victor v. State , 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex. App.སྭHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d); see Adanandus v. State , 866 S.W.2d 210, 225 (Tex. Crim. 2006Victor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd); see Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1338 , 127 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994). | 3 | 3 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Shuffield, 189 S.W.3d at 785 (holding explanation that trial prosecutor was not sure that prospective juror was being completely honest about his criminal background to be race-neutral); Johnson, 68 S.W.3d at 648 (holding peremptory challenge race-neutral when prospective juror failed to disclose prior arrest for driving while license suspended); Ealoms v. State, 983 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, pet. ref'd.) (upholding trial prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenge in part because prospective juror did not reveal arrest record in response to questions asked by prosecutor); Yar 2008See Shuffield , 189 S.W.3d at 785 (holding explanation that trial prosecutor was not sure that prospective juror was being completely honest about his criminal background to be race-neutral); Johnson , 68 S.W.3d at 648 (holding peremptory challenge race-neutral when prospective juror failed to disclose prior arrest for driving while license suspended); Ealoms v. State , 983 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Tex. App.--Waco 1998, pet. ref'd.) (upholding trial prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenge in part because prospective juror did not reveal arrest record in response to questions asked by prosecutor) | 2 | 2 |
Ealoms v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Shuffield, 189 S.W.3d at 785 (holding explanation that trial prosecutor was not sure that prospective juror was being completely honest about his criminal background to be race-neutral); Johnson, 68 S.W.3d at 648 (holding peremptory challenge race-neutral when prospective juror failed to disclose prior arrest for driving while license suspended); Ealoms v. State, 983 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, pet. ref'd.) (upholding trial prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenge in part because prospective juror did not reveal arrest record in response to questions asked by prosecutor); Yar 2008See Shuffield, 189 S.W.3d at 785 (holding explanation that trial prosecutor was not sure that prospective juror was being completely honest about his criminal background to be race-neutral); Johnson, 68 S.W.3d at 648 (holding peremptory challenge race-neutral when prospective juror failed to disclose prior arrest for driving while license suspended); Ealoms v. State, 983 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, pet. ref'd.) (upholding trial prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenge in part because prospective juror did not reveal arrest record in response to questions asked by prosecutor); Yar | 2 | 2 |
Adanandus v. Texasgreen2 sentences2006Victor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd); see Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1338 , 127 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994). 1999Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 224-25 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1338 , 127 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
Napier v. Texasgreen2 sentences2006Victor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd); see Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1338 , 127 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994). 1999Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 224-25 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215 , 114 S.Ct. 1338 , 127 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences1997They would have held simply that “equal protection is denied whenever race is a factor in the exercise of a peremptory challenge.” Id. at 875 . 1997They would have held simply that "equal protection is denied whenever race is a factor in the exercise of a peremptory challenge." Id. at 875. | 1 | 2 |
United States of America, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Quentin Yankton, Appellee/cross-Appellantgreen2 sentences1994United States v. Yankton, 986 F.2d 1225 (8th Cir.1993); Hill v. State, 827 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.Cir.App.1992). 1994United States v. Yankton, 986 F.2d 1225, 1230 (8th Cir.1993); Rasco v. State, 739 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Fisk Electric Co.green1 sentence2012Davis, 268 S.W.3d at 511, 516 . | 1 | 1 |
Nieto v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Nieto v. State, 365 S.W.3d 673, 680 (Tex. Crim. 2012See Nieto v. State, 365 S.W.3d 673, 680 (Tex.Crim.App.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Earhart v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Esteves v. State, 849 S.W.2d 822 , 824 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) 3 ; Earhart v. State, 823 S.W.2d 607, 624 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Rasco v. Stategreen1 sentence1994United States v. Yankton, 986 F.2d 1225, 1230 (8th Cir.1993); Rasco v. State, 739 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rodney Lamar Clemonsgreen2 sentences1993United States v. Clemons, 941 F.2d 321, 325 (5th Cir.1991); see also Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 865 (peremptory strikes may be based on the prosecutor’s legitimate “hunches” so long as racial discrimination is not the motive). 1993United States v. Clemons, 941 F.2d 321, 325 (5th Cir.1991); see also Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 865 (peremptory strikes may be based on the prosecutor's legitimate "hunches" so long as racial discrimination is not the motive). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Esteves v. State
green
2 sentences2004Esteves v. State , 849 S.W.2d 822 , 824 n.2 (Tex. Crim. 2003Esteves v. State, 849 S.W.2d 822 , 824 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) 3 ; Earhart v. State, 823 S.W.2d 607, 624 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). | 4 | 2003–2004 |
Grizzell v. State
green
2 sentences1977Although Grizzell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 362 , 298 S.W.2d 816 , did not involve the denial of a question sought expressly for the exercise of a peremptory challenge, we find the test stated there to be appropriate for this situation, in light of the latitude which should be accorded counsel in preparing himself to intelligently exercise his client’s peremptory challenges. 1977Although Grizzell v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 362 , 298 S.W.2d 816 , did not involve the denial of a question sought expressly for the exercise of a peremptory challenge, we find the test stated there to be appropriate for this situation, in light of the latitude which should be accorded counsel in preparing himself to intelligently exercise his client’s peremptory challenges. | 3 | 1974–1977 |
Montgomery v. State
green
2 sentences2010Counsel merely stated he was ―making an objection for the record.‖ In Montgomery and Victor, our sister courts found that ―a veniremember’s belief in rehabilitation as the primary goal of punishment is a race-neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge.‖ Montgomery, 198 S.W.3d at 76 ; Victor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 2008Counsel merely stated he was making an objection for the record. In Montgomery and Victor , our sister courts found that a veniremembers belief in rehabilitation as the primary goal of punishment is a race-neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. Montgomery , 198 S.W.3d at 76 ; Victor v. State , 995 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. refd). | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Cantu v. State
green
2 sentences2008Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Roy v. State, 891 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no pet.). 2008Cantu v. State , 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Whitsey v. State
green
1 sentence2013Here, we recognize that judicial review of the exercise of a peremptory challenge is not limited to situations where there is a blatant constitutional violation, such as where a prosecutor states “I struck that prospective juror because he 5 is black.” Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707 , 713 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Roy v. State
green
1 sentence2008Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Roy v. State, 891 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no pet.). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2001Explaining *867 step two, the Court in Batson stated that the prosecutor "must articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried" and give a "clear and reasonably specific" explanation of his "legitimate reasons for exercising the challenges." Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 & n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2001Explaining *867 step two, the Court in Batson stated that the prosecutor "must articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried" and give a "clear and reasonably specific" explanation of his "legitimate reasons for exercising the challenges." Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 & n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Jones v. Ryan
green
2 sentences1997A similar situation was addressed in Jones v. Ryan, 987 F.2d 960 (3rd Cir.1993). 1997A similar situation was addressed in Jones v. Ryan, 987 F.2d 960 (3rd Cir.1993). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences1992In support of its contention, the State relies on Lee v. State, 747 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.App. Houston [1st] 1988) (pet. refd.). 1992In support of its contention, the State relies on Lee v. State, 747 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1988) (pet. ref’d.). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.