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.
13 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2019 0 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. Riveragreen2 sentences2016But here, because we find that the trial court did not properly conduct the second- and third-stage Batson hearing and, therefore, remand is necessary, we examine the record to determine whether it is sufficient to find that respondent sustained his initial burden to establish a prima facie case so that a new first-stage hearing is not necessary. ¶ 29 Rivera articulated the following relevant factors a trial court should consider in determining whether a prima facie Batson violation has been established: “ ‘(1) the racial identity between [the party exercising the peremptory challenge] and the 2016But here, because we find that the trial court did not properly conduct the second- and third-stage Batson hearing and, therefore, remand is necessary, we examine the record to determine whether it is sufficient to find that respondent sustained his initial burden to establish a prima facie case so that a new first-stage hearing is not necessary. ¶ 29 Rivera articulated the following relevant factors a trial court should consider in determining whether a prima facie Batson violation has been established: “ ‘(1) the racial identity between [the party exercising the peremptory challenge] and the | 6 | 6 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2019Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 . ¶ 51 In Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170 (2005), the Supreme Court explained the threshold for establishing a prima facie Batson claim is not high: “a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” Case law has provided seven factors to aid in determining whether a prima facie case exists: “(1) racial identity between the defendant and the excluded venirepersons; (2) a pattern of strikes against African-American venirepersons; (3) a di 2018Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . ¶ 51 In Johnson v. California , 545 U.S. 162 , 170, 125 S.Ct. 2410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005), the Supreme Court explained the threshold for establishing a prima facie Batson claim is not high: "a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson 's first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred." Case law has provided seven factors to aid in determining whether a prima facie case exists: "(1) racial identity between the defendant and the excluded venirepersons; (2) a pattern of s | 5 | 6 |
People v. Shawgreen2 sentences2017See People v. Garrett, 139 Ill. 2d 189, 203 (1990) (number of black members of venire peremptorily challenged, without more, insufficient to establish prima facie case of discrimination); see also Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d at 514 (pattern of discrimination not demonstrated “anytime a party strikes more than one juror of any race”); People v. Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶ 25 (“[W]hile evidence of a pattern of discriminatory strikes is one factor a court should consider when determining whether the party challenging the peremptory strike has established a prima facie case under Batson, it is not a 2017See People v. Garrett, 139 Ill. 2d 189, 203 (1990) (number of black members of venire peremptorily challenged, without more, is insufficient to establish prima facie case of discrimination); see also Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d at 514 (pattern of discrimination not demonstrated “anytime a party strikes more than one juror of any race”); People v. Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶ 25 (“[W]hile evidence of a pattern of discriminatory strikes is one factor a court should consider when determining whether the party challenging the peremptory strike has established a prima facie case under Batson, it is no | 4 | 4 |
People v. Garrettgreen2 sentences2017See People v. Garrett, 139 Ill. 2d 189, 203 (1990) (number of black members of venire peremptorily challenged, without more, insufficient to establish prima facie case of discrimination); see also Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d at 514 (pattern of discrimination not demonstrated “anytime a party strikes more than one juror of any race”); People v. Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶ 25 (“[W]hile evidence of a pattern of discriminatory strikes is one factor a court should consider when determining whether the party challenging the peremptory strike has established a prima facie case under Batson, it is not a 2017See People v. Garrett, 139 Ill. 2d 189, 203 (1990) (number of black members of venire peremptorily challenged, without more, is insufficient to establish prima facie case of discrimination); see also Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d at 514 (pattern of discrimination not demonstrated “anytime a party strikes more than one juror of any race”); People v. Shaw, 2014 IL App (4th) 121157, ¶ 25 (“[W]hile evidence of a pattern of discriminatory strikes is one factor a court should consider when determining whether the party challenging the peremptory strike has established a prima facie case under Batson, it is no | 4 | 4 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2019Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 . ¶ 51 In Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170 (2005), the Supreme Court explained the threshold for establishing a prima facie Batson claim is not high: “a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” Case law has provided seven factors to aid in determining whether a prima facie case exists: “(1) racial identity between the defendant and the excluded venirepersons; (2) a pattern of strikes against African-American venirepersons; (3) a di 2018Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . ¶ 51 In Johnson v. California , 545 U.S. 162 , 170, 125 S.Ct. 2410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005), the Supreme Court explained the threshold for establishing a prima facie Batson claim is not high: "a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson 's first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred." Case law has provided seven factors to aid in determining whether a prima facie case exists: "(1) racial identity between the defendant and the excluded venirepersons; (2) a pattern of s | 2 | 5 |
People v. Hudsongreen2 sentences2004See Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d at 427 . 2004See Hudson, 157 Ill.2d at 427 , 193 Ill.Dec. 128 , 626 N.E.2d 161 . | 2 | 2 |
Powers v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1999On appeal, our decision determined defendant had established a prima facie Batson violation that suggested the "possibility of racial motivation." We relied on a United States Supreme Court decision issued subsequent to Zayas that held "a criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror are the same race." See Powers v. Ohio , 499 U.S. 400, 404 , 113 L. 1999On appeal, our decision determined defendant had established a prima facie Batson violation that suggested the "possibility of racial motivation." We relied on a United States Supreme Court decision issued subsequent to Zayas that held "a criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror are the same race." See Powers v. Ohio , 499 U.S. 400, 404 , 113 L. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Californiagreen2 sentences2019Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 . ¶ 51 In Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170 (2005), the Supreme Court explained the threshold for establishing a prima facie Batson claim is not high: “a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” Case law has provided seven factors to aid in determining whether a prima facie case exists: “(1) racial identity between the defendant and the excluded venirepersons; (2) a pattern of strikes against African-American venirepersons; (3) a di 2018Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . ¶ 51 In Johnson v. California , 545 U.S. 162 , 170, 125 S.Ct. 2410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005), the Supreme Court explained the threshold for establishing a prima facie Batson claim is not high: "a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson 's first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred." Case law has provided seven factors to aid in determining whether a prima facie case exists: "(1) racial identity between the defendant and the excluded venirepersons; (2) a pattern of s | 1 | 2 |
People v. Evansgreen2 sentences1990(See People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill.2d 50, 66 , 125 Ill.Dec. 790 , 530 N.E.2d 1360 (racial characteristics of crime are relevant when ruling on establishment of prima facie case).) As a final point, the State mentions this court's previous holding that a trial court's finding that a defendant has not established a prima facie Batson claim will be overturned only if against the manifest weight of the evidence ( People v. Brisbon (1989), 129 Ill.2d 200, 231 , 135 Ill.Dec. 801 , 544 N.E.2d 297 ), and the Supreme Court's comment in Batson that a reviewing court should give "great deference" to a 1990(See People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill.2d 50, 66 , 125 Ill.Dec. 790 , 530 N.E.2d 1360 (racial characteristics of crime are relevant when ruling on establishment of prima facie case).) As a final point, the State mentions this court's previous holding that a trial court's finding that a defendant has not established a prima facie Batson claim will be overturned only if against the manifest weight of the evidence ( People v. Brisbon (1989), 129 Ill.2d 200, 231 , 135 Ill.Dec. 801 , 544 N.E.2d 297 ), and the Supreme Court's comment in Batson that a reviewing court should give "great deference" to a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hari
green
2 sentences2017Citing People v. Hari, 218 Ill. 2d 275 (2006), Austin maintains the evidence at trial was sufficient to fulfill the requirement of “slight evidence upon a given theory of a case” and that the instruction as given was misleading on the key issue of identification of the weapon. 2017Citing People v. Hari, 218 Ill. 2d 275 (2006), Austin maintains the evidence at trial was sufficient to fulfill the requirement of “slight evidence upon a given theory of a case” and that the instruction as given was misleading on the key issue of identification of the weapon. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Holland
green
2 sentences1992Ed. 2d 69, 85-86 , 106 S. Ct. 1712, 1721 .)” (Holland, 121 Ill. 2d at 157 .) The Holland court concluded that since the defendant was white, and was challenging the exclusion of black prospective jurors, the defendant could not “establish the threshold element of a prima facie Batson violation.” (Holland, 121 Ill. 2d at 157 .) This court thus declined to address the defendant’s Batson claim. 1992Ed. 2d 69, 85-86 , 106 S. Ct. 1712, 1721 .)” (Holland, 121 Ill. 2d at 157 .) The Holland court concluded that since the defendant was white, and was challenging the exclusion of black prospective jurors, the defendant could not “establish the threshold element of a prima facie Batson violation.” (Holland, 121 Ill. 2d at 157 .) This court thus declined to address the defendant’s Batson claim. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Brisbon
green
2 sentences1990(See People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill.2d 50, 66 , 125 Ill.Dec. 790 , 530 N.E.2d 1360 (racial characteristics of crime are relevant when ruling on establishment of prima facie case).) As a final point, the State mentions this court's previous holding that a trial court's finding that a defendant has not established a prima facie Batson claim will be overturned only if against the manifest weight of the evidence ( People v. Brisbon (1989), 129 Ill.2d 200, 231 , 135 Ill.Dec. 801 , 544 N.E.2d 297 ), and the Supreme Court's comment in Batson that a reviewing court should give "great deference" to a 1990(See People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill.2d 50, 66 , 125 Ill.Dec. 790 , 530 N.E.2d 1360 (racial characteristics of crime are relevant when ruling on establishment of prima facie case).) As a final point, the State mentions this court's previous holding that a trial court's finding that a defendant has not established a prima facie Batson claim will be overturned only if against the manifest weight of the evidence ( People v. Brisbon (1989), 129 Ill.2d 200, 231 , 135 Ill.Dec. 801 , 544 N.E.2d 297 ), and the Supreme Court's comment in Batson that a reviewing court should give "great deference" to a | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence1987Neither this court ( People v. Gaines (1984), 105 Ill.2d 79, 88 ; People v. Williams (1983), 97 Ill.2d 252, 278-80 ) nor the Supreme Court ( Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 84-85 n. 4, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 79 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1716 n. 4) have so held. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Gaines
green
1 sentence1987Neither this court ( People v. Gaines (1984), 105 Ill.2d 79, 88 ; People v. Williams (1983), 97 Ill.2d 252, 278-80 ) nor the Supreme Court ( Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 84-85 n. 4, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 79 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1716 n. 4) have so held. | 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.