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 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pruittgreen2 sentences2014On appeal, we concluded that the judge's decision was contrary to the principles set forth in State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486 (2009), which stated the following standards for determining whether a defendant has presented a prima facie case in mounting a Gilmore challenge: In determining whether a defendant has produced evidence sufficient "to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred[,]" the Court directed trial courts to consider the following factors: (1) that the prosecutor struck most or all of the members of the identified group from the venire; (2) that the prosecutor used a dispr 2014On appeal, we concluded that the judge's decision was contrary to the principles set forth in State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486 (2009), which stated the following standards for determining whether a defendant has presented a prima facie case in mounting a Gilmore challenge: In determining whether a defendant has produced evidence sufficient "to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred[,]" the Court directed trial courts to consider the following factors: (1) that the prosecutor struck most or all of the members of the identified group from the venire; (2) that the prosecutor used a dispr | 2 | 2 |
State v. Osoriogreen2 sentences2025We are satisfied the court properly determined the State provided a "reasoned, neutral basis for the challenge[s]," see Osorio, 199 N.J. at 492 , and properly denied defendant's Gilmore challenge. 2016Next, we reiterated that the third step of the Gilmore analysis requires the trial court to “weigh the proofs ... and determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the party contesting the exercise of a peremptory challenge has proven that the contested peremptory challenge was exercised on unconstitutionally impermissible grounds of presumed group bias.” Osorio, supra, 199 N.J. at 492-93 , 973 A.2d 365 . | 1 | 7 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2021The record before us shows that the trial court abruptly ended the Batson/Gilmore hearing after the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation for only one of the two African 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986). 2 A-1966-18 American jurors who, defendant claims, were impermissibly challenged on the basis of race. 2019Id. at 3. 3 Powell pleaded guilty to that crime, as well as to the conspiracies charged in counts one and seven. 4 Russell raised the following arguments on direct appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue; (2) the trial court erred in denying severance and not conducting a separate trial as to each defendant; (3) the prosecutor committed a Batson/Gilmore error, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986); (4) the trial court erred by permitting a detective to testify as a gang expert; (5) the trial court erred by permitting | 1 | 3 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2009The considerations relevant to this final step of the Gilmore analysis were comprehensively summarized in State v. Clark, 316 N.J.Super. 462 , 720 A.2d 632 (App.Div.1998), appeal after remand, 324 N.J.Super. 558 , 737 A.2d 172 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 10 , 746 A.2d 456 (2000). 2009The considerations relevant to this final step of the Gilmore analysis were comprehensively summarized in State v. Clark, 316 N.J.Super. 462 , 720 A.2d 632 (App.Div.1998), appeal after remand, 324 N.J.Super. 558 , 737 A.2d 172 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 10 , 746 A.2d 456 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jeffersongreen1 sentence2021See State v. Jefferson, 429 P.3d 467, 480 (Wash. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Oregon v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2001See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 674 , 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2088 , 72 L.Ed. 2d 416, 423-24 (1982) (prosecutorial misconduct or overreaching bars retrial when intended to "goad" defendant into moving for mistrial). 2001See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 674 , 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2088 , 72 L.Ed. 2d 416, 423-24 (1982) (prosecutorial misconduct or overreaching bars retrial when intended to "goad" defendant into moving for mistrial). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leo Bishopred2 sentences2001See United States v. Bishop, 959 F. 2d 820 , 829 n. 10 (9th Cir.1992). 2001See United States v. Bishop, 959 F. 2d 820 , 829 n. 10 (9th Cir.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gilmore
green
2 sentences2021The record before us shows that the trial court abruptly ended the Batson/Gilmore hearing after the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation for only one of the two African 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986). 2 A-1966-18 American jurors who, defendant claims, were impermissibly challenged on the basis of race. 2019Id. at 3. 3 Powell pleaded guilty to that crime, as well as to the conspiracies charged in counts one and seven. 4 Russell raised the following arguments on direct appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue; (2) the trial court erred in denying severance and not conducting a separate trial as to each defendant; (3) the prosecutor committed a Batson/Gilmore error, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986); (4) the trial court erred by permitting a detective to testify as a gang expert; (5) the trial court erred by permitting | 8 | 2009–2021 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2009The considerations relevant to this final step of the Gilmore analysis were comprehensively summarized in State v. Clark, 316 N.J.Super. 462 , 720 A.2d 632 (App.Div.1998), appeal after remand, 324 N.J.Super. 558 , 737 A.2d 172 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 10 , 746 A.2d 456 (2000). 2009The considerations relevant to this final step of the Gilmore analysis were comprehensively summarized in State v. Clark, 316 N.J.Super. 462 , 720 A.2d 632 (App.Div.1998), appeal after remand, 324 N.J.Super. 558 , 737 A.2d 172 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 10 , 746 A.2d 456 (2000). | 2 | 2009–2016 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2021The record before us shows that the trial court abruptly ended the Batson/Gilmore hearing after the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation for only one of the two African 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986). 2 A-1966-18 American jurors who, defendant claims, were impermissibly challenged on the basis of race. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Osorio
green
2 sentences2016The Appellate Division had "difficulty understanding how a prosecutor could [conclude] that a prospective juror who felt that the perpetrator of a crime against a family member 'got off would be biased against the State, but that prospective jurors who had been informed the perpetrator had not been apprehended would not have such bias.” Ibid. 10 A Gilmore challenge is timely so long as it is raised "during or at the end of the jury selection, but before the petit jury is sworn." Gilmore, supra, 103 N.J. at 535 , 511 A.2d 1150 . 11 Defense counsel’s contention that he was at a disadvantage beca 2016The Appellate Division had "difficulty understanding how a prosecutor could [conclude] that a prospective juror who felt that the perpetrator of a crime against a family member 'got off would be biased against the State, but that prospective jurors who had been informed the perpetrator had not been apprehended would not have such bias.” Ibid. 10 A Gilmore challenge is timely so long as it is raised "during or at the end of the jury selection, but before the petit jury is sworn." Gilmore, supra, 103 N.J. at 535 , 511 A.2d 1150 . 11 Defense counsel’s contention that he was at a disadvantage beca | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Johnson v. California
green
2 sentences2013Relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 125 S.Ct. 2410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005), the Osorio Court stated, Johnson, supra, explained that rebutting the presumption of constitutionality of a peremptory challenge was not intend[ed] ... to be so onerous that a defendant would have to persuade the judge — on the basis of all of the facts, some of which are impossible for the defendant to know with certainty — that the challenge was more likely than not the product of purposeful discrimination. [ Osorio, supra, 199 N.J. at 502 , 973 A.2d 3 2013Relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 125 S.Ct. 2410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005), the Osorio Court stated, Johnson, supra, explained that rebutting the presumption of constitutionality of a peremptory challenge was not intend[ed] ... to be so onerous that a defendant would have to persuade the judge — on the basis of all of the facts, some of which are impossible for the defendant to know with certainty — that the challenge was more likely than not the product of purposeful discrimination. [ Osorio, supra, 199 N.J. at 502 , 973 A.2d 3 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Chevalier
green
1 sentence2013Ibid. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Wheeler
red
2 sentences2009We do so because our earlier standard was based on the reasoning in Wheeler, supra, that the party contesting the exercise *503 of a peremptory challenge, “from all the circumstances of the case[,] must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias.” 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d at 764 . 2009We do so because our earlier standard was based on the reasoning in Wheeler, supra, that the party contesting the exercise *503 of a peremptory challenge, “from all the circumstances of the case[,] must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias.” 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d at 764 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Townes
green
1 sentence1992See, State v. Gilmore, supra ; State v. Townes, 220 N.J. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Carton v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1987As the Supreme Court stated in Carton, supra : There must be no defiance of a court, least of all by one of its officers. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.