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.
11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colone v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Courts analyze Batson claims using a three-step process: (1) the opponent of the peremptory challenge must present a prima facie case of racial discrimination, (2) if that is done, the burden shifts to the proponent of the peremptory challenge to present a race-neutral reason for the challenge, and (3) if that is done, the trial court must then determine whether the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination. 4 Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d 249, 262-63 (Tex. Crim. 2019A three-step process is used to analyze claims under Batson: (1) the opponent of the peremptory challenge must present a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) if there is prima facie case shown, the burden shifts to the proponent of the peremptory challenge to present a race-neutral reason for the challenge; and (3) if there is a race-neutral reason for the challenge, the trial court must then determine whether the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination. -8- Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d 249, 262-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). | 6 | 6 |
Snyder v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2023App. 2019); see also Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 476-77 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Grant v. Stategreen1 sentence2019“The trial court’s ruling in the third step must be sustained on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.” Grant v. State, 325 S.W.3d 655, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1999Id. 1999Id. | 3 | 1997–1999 |
Purkett v. Elem
green
2 sentences1998Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767-768 , 115 S.Ct. at 1770 ; Williams, 937 S.W.2d at 485 . 1998Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767-768 , 115 S.Ct. at 1770 ; Williams, 937 S.W.2d at 485 . | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Carter v. State
green
2 sentences1998Carter, 946 S.W.2d at 511 . 1998Carter, 946 S.W.2d at 511 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.