evaluation of a Batson challenge (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

evaluation of a Batson challenge in Georgia

15 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2012 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Georgia 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Thomas v. Stategreen
ga · 2001 · cited in 9 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2010
2 sentences

2010The evaluation of a Batson challenge involves a three-step process: (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proven discriminatory intent. [Cit.] Thomas v. State, 214 Ga. 156, 161 (5) ( 549 SE2d 359 ) (2001).

2008The evaluation of a Batson challenge involves a three-step process: (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proven discriminatory intent. [Cit.] Thomas v. State, 274 Ga. 156, 161 (5) ( 549 SE2d 359 ) (2001).

89
Chandler v. Stategreen
ga · 1996 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2001–2005
2 sentences

2005Thomas v. State, 274 Ga. 156, 161 ( 549 SE2d 359 ) (2001); Chandler v. State, 266 Ga. 509, 510 ( 467 SE2d 562 ) (1996).

2005Thomas v. State, 274 Ga. 156, 161 ( 549 SE2d 359 ) (2001); Chandler v. State, 266 Ga. 509, 510 ( 467 SE2d 562 ) (1996).

22
Kimble v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kimble v. State, 301 Ga. App. 237, 245 (6) ( 687 SE2d 242 ) (2009).

2012(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kimble v. State, 301 Ga. App. 237, 245 (6) ( 687 SE2d 242 ) (2009).

11
Blackshear v. Stategreen
ga · 2009 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012The appeal was docketed to the April 2012 term of this Court and was submitted for a decision on briefs. 2 The evaluation of a Batson challenge involves a three-step process: (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proven discriminatory intent. [Cit.] Blackshear v. State, 285 Ga. 619, 620 ( 680 SE2d 850 ) (2009).

2012The appeal was docketed to the April 2012 term of this Court and was submitted for a decision on briefs. 2 The evaluation of a Batson challenge involves a three-step process: (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proven discriminatory intent. [Cit.] Blackshear v. State, 285 Ga. 619, 620 ( 680 SE2d 850 ) (2009).

11
Ayers v. Stategreen
ga · 1958 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010The evaluation of a Batson challenge involves a three-step process: (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proven discriminatory intent. [Cit.] Thomas v. State, 214 Ga. 156, 161 (5) ( 549 SE2d 359 ) (2001).

11
Ludy v. Stategreen
ga · 2008 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ludy v. State, 283 Ga. 322, 324 (2) ( 658 SE2d 745 ) (2008).

2009(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ludy v. State, 283 Ga. 322, 324 (2) ( 658 SE2d 745 ) (2008).

11
Flanders v. Stategreen
ga · 2005 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009(Citation omitted.) Flanders v. State, 279 Ga. 35, 37 (2) ( 609 SE2d 346 ) (2005).

2009(Citation omitted.) Flanders v. State, 279 Ga. 35, 37 (2) ( 609 SE2d 346 ) (2005).

11
McCastle v. Stategreen
gactapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006(Citations omitted.) McCastle v. State, 276 Ga. App. 218, 219 (1) ( 622 SE2d 896 ) (2005).

2006(Citations omitted.) McCastle v. State, 276 Ga. App. 218, 219 (1) ( 622 SE2d 896 ) (2005).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Where else courts name it

GA 15 (2001–2012) OH 2 (2017–2017) NC 2 (2023–2023)

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