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.
12 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–1998 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rockett v. Stategreen2 sentences1995In Rockett v. State, 318 Ark. 831 , 890 S.W.2d 235 (1994), this court set out the following required procedures when a Batson objection is raised: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. 1995In Rockett v. State, 318 Ark. 831 , 890 S.W.2d 235 (1994), this court set out the following required procedures when a Batson objection is raised: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. | 1 | 2 |
Purkett v. Elemgreen2 sentences1995See the recent application of the Batson doctrine in Purkett v. Elem, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). *511 In the recent case of Rockett v. State, 318 Ark. 831 , 890 S.W.2d 235 (1994), we set out the procedures which are to be followed in Arkansas when a Batson objection is raised: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. 1995See the recent application of the Batson doctrine in Purkett v. Elem, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). *511 In the recent case of Rockett v. State, 318 Ark. 831 , 890 S.W.2d 235 (1994), we set out the procedures which are to be followed in Arkansas when a Batson objection is raised: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Franklin v. State
green
2 sentences1998This court somewhat modified its holding in Colbert in Franklin v. State, 314 Ark. 329 , 863 S.W.2d 268 (1993): First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. 1998This court somewhat modified its holding in Colbert in Franklin v. State, 314 Ark. 329 , 863 S.W.2d 268 (1993): First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. | 2 | 1994–1998 |
Brown v. Kristianson
neutral
2 sentences1997Sonny v. Balch Motor Co., supra. As was reiterated by the court in Wooten v. State, 325 Ark. 510 , 931 S.W.2d 408 (1996), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 979 (1997): First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. 1997Sonny v. Balch Motor Co., supra. As was reiterated by the court in Wooten v. State, 325 Ark. 510 , 931 S.W.2d 408 (1996), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 979 (1997): First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Wooten v. State
green
2 sentences1997Sonny v. Balch Motor Co., supra. As was reiterated by the court in Wooten v. State, 325 Ark. 510 , 931 S.W.2d 408 (1996), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 979 (1997): First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. 1997Sonny v. Balch Motor Co., supra. As was reiterated by the court in Wooten v. State, 325 Ark. 510 , 931 S.W.2d 408 (1996), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 979 (1997): First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Hernandez v. New York
green
2 sentences1996In Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), the Court stated that once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot. 1996In Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), the Court stated that once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Sims v. State
green
2 sentences1995In Sims v. State, 320 Ark. 528 , 900 S.W.2d 508 (1995), we recently set out the procedures which are to be followed when a Batson objection is raised: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. 1995In Sims v. State, 320 Ark. 528 , 900 S.W.2d 508 (1995), we recently set out the procedures which are to be followed when a Batson objection is raised: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1997Batson Challenge The procedure for a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), is well-settled: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. 1997Batson Challenge The procedure for a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is well settled: First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that racial discrimination is the basis of a juror challenge. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Bell v. State
green
2 sentences1997Bell, 324 Ark. 258 , 920 S.W.2d 821 . 1997Bell, 324 Ark. 258 , 920 S.W.2d 821 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tucker v. State
green
2 sentences1994Franklin v. State, 314 Ark. 329 , 863 S.W.2d 268 (1993); Tucker v. State, 313 Ark. 624 , 855 S.W.2d 948 (1993). 1994Franklin v. State, 314 Ark. 329 , 863 S.W.2d 268 (1993); Tucker v. State, 313 Ark. 624 , 855 S.W.2d 948 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.