13 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holland v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2009See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“We have never invoked the fair-cross-section principle to invalidate the use of ... peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or veni-res, to reflect the composition of the community at large."); see also Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 , 110 S.Ct. 803 , 107 L.Ed.2d 905 (1990). 2009See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“We have never invoked the fair-cross-section principle to invalidate the use of ... peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or veni-res, to reflect the composition of the community at large."); see also Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 , 110 S.Ct. 803 , 107 L.Ed.2d 905 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
Lockhart v. McCreegreen2 sentences2009See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“We have never invoked the fair-cross-section principle to invalidate the use of ... peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or veni-res, to reflect the composition of the community at large."); see also Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 , 110 S.Ct. 803 , 107 L.Ed.2d 905 (1990). 2009See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986) (“We have never invoked the fair-cross-section principle to invalidate the use of ... peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, or to require petit juries, as opposed to jury panels or veni-res, to reflect the composition of the community at large."); see also Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 , 110 S.Ct. 803 , 107 L.Ed.2d 905 (1990). | 1 | 3 |
Danzie v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979); see also Danzie v. State, 326 Ark. 34, 43 , 930 S.W.2d 310, 315 (1996). 2023Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979); see also Danzie v. State, 326 Ark. 34, 43 , 930 S.W.2d 310, 315 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 480 (1990); see also Thomas, 370 Ark. at 77 , 257 S.W.3d at 98 (holding there is no requirement that the petit jury actually seated in a defendant’s case mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population). 2022See Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 480 (1990); see also Thomas, 370 Ark. at 77 , 257 S.W.3d at 98 (holding there is no requirement that the petit jury actually seated in a defendant’s case mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population). | 1 | 1 |
Castaneda v. Partidagreen1 sentence2022Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 495 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2022The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power—to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge.” 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Rodriguez v. State, 372 Ark. 335, 341 , 276 S.W.3d 208, 214 (2008). 2022Rodriguez v. State, 372 Ark. 335, 341 , 276 S.W.3d 208, 214 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Duren v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2023Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979); see also Danzie v. State, 326 Ark. 34, 43 , 930 S.W.2d 310, 315 (1996). 2022In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, a defendant must demonstrate all three of the following: (1) the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury venires is not “fair and reasonable” in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) the underrepresentation is caused by the “systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.” Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 . 13 Only if a defendant meets this standard will the burden shift to the State. | 6 | 1989–2023 |
Hale v. State
green
2 sentences2021Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62 , 85 n.7, 31 S.W.3d 850 , 864 n.7 (2000) (declaring an argument abandoned 6 briefs on appeal—he sought discovery to determine if a fair cross section challenge was required. 2021Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62 , 85 n.7, 31 S.W.3d 850 , 864 n.7 (2000) (declaring an argument abandoned 6 briefs on appeal—he sought discovery to determine if a fair cross section challenge was required. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miller v. State
green
2 sentences2010Miller v. State, 2010 Ark. 1 , 362 S.W.3d 264 . 2010Miller v. State, 2010 Ark. 1 , 362 S.W.3d 264 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Sanders v. State
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.