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 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2026See Edwards, 177 A.3d at 971 (stating that, when a defendant makes a Batson challenge during jury selection, he/she must first “make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race”). 2021In Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 963 (Pa. Super, 2018) the Pennsylvania Superior Court explained: When a defendant makes a Batson challenge during jury selection: (1) the defendant must make a prima fade showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; (2) if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race -neutral explanation for striking the jurors at issue; and (3) the trial court must then make the ultimate determination of whether the defense has carried its | 8 | 13 |
Commonwealth v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2018When a defendant makes a Batson challenge during jury selection: First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; second, if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the juror(s) at issue; and third, the trial court must then make the ultimate determination of whether the defense has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination, Commonwealth v. Watkins, 630 Pa. 652 , 108 A. 2018When a defendant makes a Batson challenge during jury selection: First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; second, if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the juror(s) at issue; and third, the trial court must then make the ultimate determination of whether the defense has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination, Commonwealth v. Watkins, 630 Pa. 652 , 108 A. | 4 | 4 |
Powers v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2021The Supreme Court subsequently amplified Batson by holding that “a criminal defendant may object to race- based exclusions of jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror share the same races.” Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 (1991).3 When a defendant makes a Batson challenge during jury selection: First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; second, if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to 2021The Supreme Court subsequently amplified Batson by holding that “a criminal defendant may object to race- based exclusions of jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror share the same races.” Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402 (1991).3 When a defendant makes a Batson challenge during jury selection: First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; second, if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Reid, A., Apltgreen1 sentence2024Id. at 568 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2021Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 751 (Pa. Super. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See, e.g, Black v. State of Texas, 845 S.W.2d 368 (Tx Ct.App.1992). . 2005See, e.g, Black v. State of Texas, 845 S.W.2d 368 (Tx Ct.App.1992). [13] Prior to Appellant's trial, Pennsylvania followed federal law in recognizing the two forms of prosecutorial misconduct (described here in Smith ) which would compel double jeopardy protection. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.