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 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Cookgreen2 sentences2023The first step, a prima facie showing, requires a defendant to show “that he is a member of a cognizable racial group,[4] that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge or challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race; and that other relevant circumstances combine to raise an inference that the prosecutor removed the juror(s) for racial reasons.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 964 , 972 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594, 602 (Pa. 2008)). 2021To establish a prima fade case of purposeful discrimination a defendant "must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge or challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race; and that other relevant circumstances combine to raise an inference that the prosecutor removed the juror(s) for racial reasons." Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594, 602 (Pa. 2008). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2023Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 963, 972 (Pa. Super. 2018). 2018Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 963, 970-971 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted). -7- J-S54041-18 To establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination[,] the defendant must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge . . . to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race; and that other relevant circumstances combine to raise an inference that the prosecutor removed the juror(s) for racial reasons. * * * The second prong of the Batson test, involving the prosecution’s obligation to come forward with a race-neu | 2 | 2 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2018Id. at 96 . 2017Batson, 476 U. S.. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712 ..... | 1 | 5 |
Flowers v. Mississippigreen1 sentence2023To enable review of the prima facie showing, Pennsylvania courts require an appellant to make a record specifically identifying (1) the race or gender of all venirepersons in the jury pools, (2) the race or gender of all venirepersons remaining after challenges for cause, (3) the race ____________________________________________ 4 “A defendant of any race may raise a Batson claim, and a defendant may raise a Batson claim even if the defendant and the excluded juror are of different races.” Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. __ , 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2243 (2019) (citing Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powers v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2023To enable review of the prima facie showing, Pennsylvania courts require an appellant to make a record specifically identifying (1) the race or gender of all venirepersons in the jury pools, (2) the race or gender of all venirepersons remaining after challenges for cause, (3) the race ____________________________________________ 4 “A defendant of any race may raise a Batson claim, and a defendant may raise a Batson claim even if the defendant and the excluded juror are of different races.” Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. __ , 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2243 (2019) (citing Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 4 2021Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 416 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Hernandez v. Texas
green
1 sentence2023To enable review of the prima facie showing, Pennsylvania courts require an appellant to make a record specifically identifying (1) the race or gender of all venirepersons in the jury pools, (2) the race or gender of all venirepersons remaining after challenges for cause, (3) the race ____________________________________________ 4 “A defendant of any race may raise a Batson claim, and a defendant may raise a Batson claim even if the defendant and the excluded juror are of different races.” Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. __ , 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2243 (2019) (citing Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 4 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Basemore
green
2 sentences2002Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ; Basemore, 744 A.2d at 728-29 . 2002Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ; Basemore, 744 A.2d at 728-29 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.