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.
15 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hudsongreen2 sentences2006“The State’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, but must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender and cannot be pretextual.” People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117, 127-28 , 745 N.E.2d 1246, 1253 (2001). 2006“The State’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, but must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender and cannot be pretextual.” People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117, 127-28 , 745 N.E.2d 1246, 1253 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TBgreen2 sentences2001The State’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, but must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender and cannot be pretextual. 511 U.S. at 145, 128 L. 2001The State’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, but must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender and cannot be pretextual. 511 U.S. at 145, 128 L. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2021Again citing Batson, the Harris court noted the general proposition of law that “the State cannot rebut a prima facie case of discrimination by stating that it does not know why it exercised its peremptory challenges.” Id. at 181 . 2021Citing Batson, the Illinois Supreme Court has held 26 that “[a]lthough the State’s explanations need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, a mere assertion that the prosecutor acted in good faith or without a discriminatory motive will not suffice.” People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123, 174 (1989). | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1992Ed. 2d at 88 , 106 S. Ct. at 1723 .) These explanations need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, but a mere assertion of good faith or nondiscriminatory motive is insufficient. 1990Ed. 2d at 89 , 106 S. Ct. at 1724 .) Although the State’s explanations need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, a mere assertion that the prosecutor acted in good faith or without a discriminatory motive will not suffice. | 6 | 1989–1992 |
People v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1994(See Mitchell, 152 Ill. 2d at 291 , 604 N.E.2d at 887 .) Indeed, any basis for a peremptory challenge should always be less than that required to support a challenge for cause. 1994(See Mitchell, 152 Ill. 2d at 291 , 604 N.E.2d at 887 .) Indeed, any basis for a peremptory challenge should always be less than that required to support a challenge for cause. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1993(People v. Thomas (1990), 201 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Cook
green
1 sentence1993App. 3d 299 , 576 N.E.2d 1242 .) The burden on the State is not a heavy one, and the State’s explanations need not rise to the level of justifying a challenge for cause. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States Ex Rel. Burton N. Pugach v. Hon. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York,respondent-Appellee
green
1 sentence1992Pugach v. Mancusi (2d Cir. 1971), 441 F.2d 1073 (effective cross-examination is possible where defendant merely affirms the statement but denies its truthfulness). 2 Although the venireperson stated that he would be able to lay aside any partiality after further questioning by the trial court, the prosecutor’s explanation need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence1992App. 3d 440, 448 , 559 N.E.2d 112, 118 ), and need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, but a mere assertion of good faith or nondiscriminatory motive is insufficient. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Hope
green
2 sentences1991(People v. Hope (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 430 , 560 N.E.2d 849 .) The explanations need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause. 1991(People v. Hope (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 430 , 560 N.E.2d 849 .) The explanations need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Batchelor
green
1 sentence1991App. 3d 316, 323 , 559 N.E.2d 948 .) However, the State’s explanations need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Harris v. Illinois
green
1 sentence1990(People v. Harris (1989) , 129 Ill. 2d 123, 177 , 544 N.E.2d 357 , cert. denied (1990), 494 U.S. 1018 , 108 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Morris v. Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence1990(People v. Harris (1989) , 129 Ill. 2d 123, 177 , 544 N.E.2d 357 , cert. denied (1990), 494 U.S. 1018 , 108 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.