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.
20 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Birdgreen2 sentences2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t 2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t | 6 | 6 |
Ex Parte Branchgreen2 sentences2007In Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987), the Alabama Supreme Court announced the standard a reviewing court should use when evaluating whether a Bat-son violation has occurred. 2007In Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987), the Alabama Supreme Court announced the standard a reviewing court should use when evaluating whether a Bat-son violation has occurred. | 2 | 6 |
Snyder v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’). [[Image here]] “Smith v. Jackson, 770 So.2d 1068, 1072-73 (Ala.2000). [[Image here]] “‘On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. 2014See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’). [[Image here]] “Smith v. Jackson, 770 So.2d 1068, 1072-73 (Ala.2000). [[Image here]] “‘On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2014See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 369 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 , (1991) (plurality opinion); id., at 372 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , (O’Connor, J., joined by Scalia, J., con curring in judgment). 2014See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 369 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 , (1991) (plurality opinion); id., at 372 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , (O’Connor, J., joined by Scalia, J., con curring in judgment). | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’). [[Image here]] “Smith v. Jackson, 770 So.2d 1068, 1072-73 (Ala.2000). [[Image here]] “‘On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. 2014See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’). [[Image here]] “Smith v. Jackson, 770 So.2d 1068, 1072-73 (Ala.2000). [[Image here]] “‘On appeal, a trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. | 1 | 1 |
Heard v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’).” Sharp v. State, 151 So.3d 342, 361 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (or remand from the Supreme Court and on application for rehearing). “ ‘The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.’ ” Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 899 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App 2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’).” Sharp v. State, 151 So.3d 342, 361 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (or remand from the Supreme Court and on application for rehearing). “ ‘The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.’ ” Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 899 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Harris v. State, 705 So.2d 542, 545 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (stating that “[w]here ... the trial court requires the opposing counsel to state reasons for the peremptory strikes without first requiring that a prima facie case of discrimination be established, this Court will review those reasons and the trial court’s ultimate decision on the Bat-son motion without determining whether the moving party met its burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination”). | 1 | 1 |
Quante Dequan Rice v. State of Alabama.green2 sentences2013In Rice v. State, 84 So.3d 144, 148 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), the defense based its Bat-son motion “solely on the number of black veniremembers the prosecution struck.” Although the trial court in Rice required the prosecution to give race-neutral reasons, this Court questioned whether the defense made out a prima facie case and stated: “ ‘Alabama courts have recently held that even a showing that [a] party had ... a high percentage of strikes used against a minority was not alone enough [to establish a prima facie ease of racial discrimination].’” 84 So.3d at 148 , quoting Armstrong v. State, 710 2013In Rice v. State, 84 So.3d 144, 148 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), the defense based its Bat-son motion “solely on the number of black veniremembers the prosecution struck.” Although the trial court in Rice required the prosecution to give race-neutral reasons, this Court questioned whether the defense made out a prima facie case and stated: “ ‘Alabama courts have recently held that even a showing that [a] party had ... a high percentage of strikes used against a minority was not alone enough [to establish a prima facie ease of racial discrimination].’” 84 So.3d at 148 , quoting Armstrong v. State, 710 | 1 | 1 |
Armstrong v. Stategreen1 sentence2013In Rice v. State, 84 So.3d 144, 148 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), the defense based its Bat-son motion “solely on the number of black veniremembers the prosecution struck.” Although the trial court in Rice required the prosecution to give race-neutral reasons, this Court questioned whether the defense made out a prima facie case and stated: “ ‘Alabama courts have recently held that even a showing that [a] party had ... a high percentage of strikes used against a minority was not alone enough [to establish a prima facie ease of racial discrimination].’” 84 So.3d at 148 , quoting Armstrong v. State, 710 | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’).” Sharp v. State, 151 So.3d 342, 361 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (or remand from the Supreme Court and on application for rehearing). “ ‘The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.’ ” Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 899 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App 2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’).” Sharp v. State, 151 So.3d 342, 361 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (or remand from the Supreme Court and on application for rehearing). “ ‘The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.’ ” Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 899 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App | 1 | 1 |
Sharp v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’).” Sharp v. State, 151 So.3d 342, 361 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (or remand from the Supreme Court and on application for rehearing). “ ‘The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.’ ” Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 899 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App 2013See, e.g., Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008) (‘[I]n reviewing a ruling claimed to be a Bat-son error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’).” Sharp v. State, 151 So.3d 342, 361 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (or remand from the Supreme Court and on application for rehearing). “ ‘The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.’ ” Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 899 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App | 1 | 1 |
John Washington Hightower v. William Terrygreen2 sentences2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t 2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t | 1 | 1 |
Gamble v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t 2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t | 1 | 1 |
Miller-El v. Cockrellgreen2 sentences2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t 2010See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Hightower v. Terry, 459 F.3d 1067 , 1072 n. 9 (11th Cir.2006) (‘We may therefore make ’ “the common sense judgment” — in light of defense counsel’s failure to rebut the prosecutor’s explanations and the trial court’s ultimate ruling — that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be credible, thereby completing step three of the Bat-son inquiry.’)”)- In addition, “ ‘[t]he explanation offered for striking each black juror must be evaluated in light of t | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 625 (Ala.1987); Cooper v. State, 611 So.2d 460, 463 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences1995The United States Supreme Court, in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1869 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), explained the rationale for this standard of review, as follows: “ ‘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 will “largely turn on evaluation of credibility.” 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21 , 106 S.Ct., at 1724, n. 21 . 1995The United States Supreme Court, in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1869 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), explained the rationale for this standard of review, as follows: “ ‘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 will “largely turn on evaluation of credibility.” 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21 , 106 S.Ct., at 1724, n. 21 . | 1 | 1 |
Merriweather v. Stategreen2 sentences1995In Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.1992), the Alabama Supreme Court said, “‘the reviewing court’s inquiry ... shall not be restricted by the mutable and often overlapping boundaries inherent within a Bat-son-analysis framework, but, rather, shall focus solely upon the propriety of the ultimate finding of discrimination vel non.’” Bui v. State, citing Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992).’ “Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). 1995In Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.1992), the Alabama Supreme Court said, “‘the reviewing court’s inquiry ... shall not be restricted by the mutable and often overlapping boundaries inherent within a Bat-son-analysis framework, but, rather, shall focus solely upon the propriety of the ultimate finding of discrimination vel non.’” Bui v. State, citing Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992).’ “Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hawkins v. State
green
1 sentence2013Hawkins v. State, 594 So.2d 181 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (striking a potential juror who knows a defense witness is race neutral).” (C.R. 1988.) We have frequently stated: “Strikes based on the veniremember’s relationship to or acquaintance with the defendant or with the defendant’s witnesses have generally been upheld. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Powers v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2010In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), the court extended its decision in Batson to apply also to white defendants.... 2010In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), the court extended its decision in Batson to apply also to white defendants.... | 1 | 2010–2010 |
JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB
green
2 sentences2010As Justice Murdock noted in his special writing, “The Supreme Court’s decision in Batson dealt with discrimination based on race; its decision in J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 , 114 S.Ct. 1419 , 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994), dealt with discrimination based on gender. 2010As Justice Murdock noted in his special writing, “The Supreme Court’s decision in Batson dealt with discrimination based on race; its decision in J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 , 114 S.Ct. 1419 , 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994), dealt with discrimination based on gender. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Oblander v. Usaa Casualty Ins. Co.
neutral
1 sentence2001Although the trial court is not required to explain its ruling on a Bat-son motion, it does have to adequately consider whether the facially neutral reasons are contrived to avoid admitting acts of group discrimination. “ ‘[T]he trial judge must make a sincere and reasonable effort to evaluate the evidence and explanations based on the circumstances as he knows them, his knowledge of trial techniques, and his observation of the manner in which the prosecutor examined the venire and the challenged jurors.’ [[Image here]] “ ‘[T]he trial judge cannot merely accept the specific reasons given by th | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bui v. State
green
2 sentences1995In Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.1992), the Alabama Supreme Court said, “‘the reviewing court’s inquiry ... shall not be restricted by the mutable and often overlapping boundaries inherent within a Bat-son-analysis framework, but, rather, shall focus solely upon the propriety of the ultimate finding of discrimination vel non.’” Bui v. State, citing Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992).’ “Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). 1995In Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.1992), the Alabama Supreme Court said, “‘the reviewing court’s inquiry ... shall not be restricted by the mutable and often overlapping boundaries inherent within a Bat-son-analysis framework, but, rather, shall focus solely upon the propriety of the ultimate finding of discrimination vel non.’” Bui v. State, citing Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992).’ “Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Huntley v. State
green
2 sentences1995In Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.1992), the Alabama Supreme Court said, “‘the reviewing court’s inquiry ... shall not be restricted by the mutable and often overlapping boundaries inherent within a Bat-son-analysis framework, but, rather, shall focus solely upon the propriety of the ultimate finding of discrimination vel non.’” Bui v. State, citing Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992).’ “Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). 1995In Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.1992), the Alabama Supreme Court said, “‘the reviewing court’s inquiry ... shall not be restricted by the mutable and often overlapping boundaries inherent within a Bat-son-analysis framework, but, rather, shall focus solely upon the propriety of the ultimate finding of discrimination vel non.’” Bui v. State, citing Huntley v. State, 627 So.2d 1013 (Ala.1992).’ “Merriweather v. State, 629 So.2d 77, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Purkett v. Elem
green
2 sentences1995The United States Supreme Court recently in Purkett v. Elem, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995), defined what is meant by a “legitimate reason” for striking a prospective juror. 1995The United States Supreme Court recently in Purkett v. Elem, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995), defined what is meant by a “legitimate reason” for striking a prospective juror. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hood v. State
green
1 sentence1993In Hood v. State, 598 So.2d 1022 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), this court upheld a trial court’s determination that the appellant did not meet his burden of presenting a prima facie case of discrimination by the State in selecting a jury. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.