attorney who exercises challenge (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

attorney who exercises challenge in Ohio

15 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Batson v. Kentuckygreen
scotus · 1986 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2000–2019
2 sentences

2019Because the trial judge’s findings in this step “‘largely turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.’” Id., quoting Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69, fn. 21 .

2019Because the trial judge’s findings in this step “‘largely turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.’” Id., quoting Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69, fn. 21 .

23

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Hernandez v. New York green
scotus · 1991
2 sentences

2019It appears from the record that hair color was used to support the state’s assumption that juror No. 5 was “very young.” In any event, the state’s reference to juror No. 5’s hair color does not alter our analysis. 11. evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at 365 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 .

2019It appears from the record that hair color was used to support the state’s assumption that juror No. 5 was “very young.” In any event, the state’s reference to juror No. 5’s hair color does not alter our analysis. 11. evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at 365 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 .

132000–2025
Wainwright v. Witt green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

2013As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’” Id. at 365 , quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). {¶ 27} Here, the prosecutor’s explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge 13 was based primarily on Juror #9’s youthful appearance, her lack of work experience, and her answer to questions about how strongly she would maintain her viewpoint.

2013As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’” Id. at 365 , quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). {¶ 27} Here, the prosecutor’s explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge 13 was based primarily on Juror #9’s youthful appearance, her lack of work experience, and her answer to questions about how strongly she would maintain her viewpoint.

42003–2013
Martin v. Nguyen, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2005) neutral
ohioctapp · 2005
1 sentence

2025As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the [striking party’s] state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’”” Martin, 2005-Ohio-1011, at ¶ 14 , quoting Hernandez, 500 U.S. 352 at 365 .

12025–2025
Purkett v. Elem green
scotus · 1995
1 sentence

2003Id. ¶ 10 In this case, the State used a peremptory challenge to excuse a Hispanic juror.

12003–2003

Where else courts name it

AL 37 (1992–2018) TX 36 (1992–2023) IL 20 (1991–2025) TN 15 (1992–2026) OH 15 (2000–2025) CA 13 (1997–2023) KS 11 (1994–2021) RI 10 (1992–2018) PA 10 (2002–2018) CO 9 (2008–2024) IN 9 (1997–2020) MO 8 (1992–2002) GA 7 (1995–2020) MI 6 (2005–2021) OK 6 (1994–2021) VA 6 (1992–2018) KY 5 (2006–2020) NY 4 (1994–2024) SC 4 (1991–1997) NC 4 (1991–2020) MS 4 (2007–2023) DC 4 (2005–2023) AR 3 (1996–1997) MD 3 (2004–2019) WA 3 (2008–2017) WY 3 (2000–2020) LA 3 (2006–2018) OR 3 (1993–2001) AZ 2 (2010–2022) WV 2 (1993–2001) NE 2 (1995–2003) IA 2 (2022–2024) ID 2 (2020–2025) UT 2 (1997–2008)

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