combination factors in Alabama

2013This combination of factors in the empanelling of the petit jury, as in the selection of the venire, raises the necessary inference of purposeful discrimination.’ ” Branch, 526 So.2d at 622 n. 11, quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 .

2002This combination of factors in the empaneling of the petit jury, as in the selection of the venire, raises the necessary inference of purposeful discrimination." "` Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 (citations omitted). "`...

2002In Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. (10 Otto) 303, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880), the Court held that racial discrimination in jury selection offends the Equal Protection Clause; however, it recognized that a defendant has no right to a jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. "`A defendant making a Batson challenge bears the burden of proving a prima facie case of purposeful or intentional discrimination and, in the absence of such proof, the prosecution is not required to state its reasons for its peremptory challenges.

2000In Strauder v. West Virginia , 100 U.S. (10 Otto) 303, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880), the Court held that racial discrimination in jury selection offends the Equal Protection Clause; however, it recognized that a defendant has no right to a jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race.

2014The combination of those factors, among other reasons, differentiate this case from Webb v. Webb, 780 So.2d 698 (Ala.Civ.App.2000), and Stewart v. Stewart, 536 So.2d 91, 92 (Ala.Civ.App.1988).

2013This combination of factors in the empanelling of the petit jury, as in the selection of the venire, raises the necessary inference of purposeful discrimination.’ ” Branch, 526 So.2d at 622 n. 11, quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 .

2002This Court in Taylor v. State, 808 So.2d 1148, 1203-04 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1215 (Ala.2001), stated: "Media publicity can prejudice prospective jurors and thereby result in a denial of a defendant's right to an impartial jury.

2000In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 , 111 S.Ct. 2077 , 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991), the Batson principles were extended to apply to civil cases.

2000In Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 , 111 S.Ct. 2077 , 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991), the Batson principles were extended to apply to civil cases.

1997The appellant argues that the trial court's finding that he had not established prima facie case was improper because, he says, it was based upon a "statistical analysis of the jury venire and the make-up of the jury." In Ex parte Thomas , 659 So.2d 3 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the fact that a greater percentage of blacks ultimately sat on the jury than were on the venire alone could not defeat a prima facie case showing of discrimination.

1995Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as fact-finders are permitted to do the same—and so are law enforcement officers.' The corollary to such a statement, however, is that in formulating such common-sense conclusions, neither police officers *1380 nor courts should sanction as `reasonably suspicious' a combination of factors that could plausibly describe the behavior of a large portion of the motorists engaged in travel upon our interstate highways. " 912 F.2d at 1371 .

1995Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as fact-finders are permitted to do the same — and so are law enforcement officers.' The corollary to such a statement, however, is that in formulating such common-sense conclusions, neither police officers *Page 1380 nor courts should sanction as 'reasonably suspicious' a combination of factors that could plausibly describe the behavior of a large portion of the motorists engaged in travel upon our interstate highways. " 912 F.2d at 1371 .

1994In Bass , this Court noted that the testimony regarding the accused's insanity was "substantial," but not "overwhelming." Bass v. State , 585 So.2d at 236 .

1992The third and final requires the demonstration of a combination of factors indicative of discrimination and may involve proof called for by the first and second methods in addition to other evidence." " 'Sperlich Jaspovice, Grand Juries, Grand Jurors and the Constitution, 1 Hastings Const. L.Q. 63 , 80-81 (1974).' " Huff v. State , 596 So.2d 16 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). " 'Neither the jury roll nor the venire need be a perfect mirror of the community nor accurately reflect the proportionate strength of every identifiable group.' Carter v. State , 53 Ala. App. 43 , 297 So.2d 175 , 180 (Ala.Cr.App. 19

1992The third and final requires the demonstration of a combination of factors indicative of discrimination and may involve proof called for by the first and second methods in addition to other evidence." " 'Sperlich Jaspovice, Grand Juries, Grand Jurors and the Constitution, 1 Hastings Const. L.Q. 63 , 80-81 (1974).' " Huff v. State , 596 So.2d 16 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). " 'Neither the jury roll nor the venire need be a perfect mirror of the community nor accurately reflect the proportionate strength of every identifiable group.' Carter v. State , 53 Ala. App. 43 , 297 So.2d 175 , 180 (Ala.Cr.App. 19

1992Mitchell v. Johnson , 250 F. Supp. 117 (M.D.Ala. 1966).

1992Among the elements which the courts have evaluated in considering whether the derivative plaintiff meets Rule 23.1's representation requirements are: economic antagonisms between representative and class; the remedy sought by plaintiff in the derivative action; indications that the named plaintiff was not the driving force behind the litigation; plaintiff's unfamiliarity with the litigation; other litigation pending between the plaintiff and defendants; the relative magnitude of plaintiff's personal interests as compared to his interest in the derivative action itself; plaintiff's vindictivene

1992Among the elements which the courts have evaluated in considering whether the derivative plaintiff meets Rule 23.1's representation requirements are: economic antagonisms between representative and class; the remedy sought by plaintiff in the derivative action; indications that the named plaintiff was not the driving force behind the litigation; plaintiff's unfamiliarity with the litigation; other litigation pending between the plaintiff and defendants; the relative magnitude of plaintiff's personal interests as compared to his interest in the derivative action itself; plaintiff's vindictivene

1992The third and final requires the demonstration of a combination of factors indicative of discrimination and may involve proof called for by the first and second methods in addition to other evidence." " 'Sperlich Jaspovice, Grand Juries, Grand Jurors and the Constitution, 1 Hastings Const. L.Q. 63 , 80-81 (1974).' " Huff v. State , 596 So.2d 16 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). " 'Neither the jury roll nor the venire need be a perfect mirror of the community nor accurately reflect the proportionate strength of every identifiable group.' Carter v. State , 53 Ala. App. 43 , 297 So.2d 175 , 180 (Ala.Cr.App. 19

1988Here, as in Staton v. State, 397 So.2d 227 (AIa.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Staton, 397 So.2d 232 (Ala.1981), it is the combination of these factors which tends to connect the appellant with the robbery.

1988Here, as in Staton v. State, 397 So.2d 227 (AIa.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Staton, 397 So.2d 232 (Ala.1981), it is the combination of these factors which tends to connect the appellant with the robbery.