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.
10 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2018Under the second step of the Batson test, the burden shifts to the prosecution to "articulate its race-neutral reason(s) for challenging that particular juror." Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting State v. Price, 706 A.2d 929 , 935 (R.I. 1998) ). 2018Under the second step of the Batson test, the burden shifts to the prosecution to "articulate its race-neutral reason(s) for challenging that particular juror." Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting State v. Price, 706 A.2d 929 , 935 (R.I. 1998) ). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Holleygreen2 sentences2013There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Price, 706 A.2d at 935 (quoting State v. Holley, 604 A.2d 772, 778 (R.I.1992)). 1994Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723-24 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-89 .” State v. Holley, 604 A.2d 772, 777 (R.I.1992). 2 At the trial below, upon being presented with the Batson objection, the trial justice immediately accepted a race-neutral reason for the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to the black juror. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pona.green2 sentences2018The first step in the three-prong Batson analysis requires that the defendant "establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination[.]" Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting Pona I , 926 A.2d at 601 ); see also Batson , 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2018The first step in the three-prong Batson analysis requires that the defendant "establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination[.]" Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting Pona I , 926 A.2d at 601 ); see also Batson , 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Charles Ponagreen2 sentences2018The first step in the three-prong Batson analysis requires that the defendant "establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination[.]" Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting Pona I , 926 A.2d at 601 ); see also Batson , 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2018The first step in the three-prong Batson analysis requires that the defendant "establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination[.]" Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting Pona I , 926 A.2d at 601 ); see also Batson , 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2007Lopez, 721 A.2d at 839 . 2007Therefore, since the trial justice accepted both the prosecutor’s explanation as satisfying the race-neutral reason for the peremptory challenge and implicitly concluded that the prosecutor did not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, we cannot say that the trial justice was clearly wrong in overruling defendant’s Batson objection.” Id. at 839 (emphases added). | 2 | 2 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2018The first step in the three-prong Batson analysis requires that the defendant "establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination[.]" Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting Pona I , 926 A.2d at 601 ); see also Batson , 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2018The first step in the three-prong Batson analysis requires that the defendant "establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination[.]" Pona II , 66 A.3d at 472 (quoting Pona I , 926 A.2d at 601 ); see also Batson , 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . | 1 | 6 |
Powers v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2013Although the challenged juror was not of the same race as defendant — an African-American male — this fact is irrelevant to the Batson inquiry; the United States Supreme Court has “eliminated the requirement that a criminal defendant share the same race as a challenged juror * * Pona, 926 A.2d at 602 (citing Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 415 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991)). 14 . 2013Although the challenged juror was not of the same race as defendant — an African-American male — this fact is irrelevant to the Batson inquiry; the United States Supreme Court has “eliminated the requirement that a criminal defendant share the same race as a challenged juror * * Pona, 926 A.2d at 602 (citing Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 415 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991)). 14 . | 1 | 3 |
Hernandez v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2018Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's *1225 explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Id. (quoting Hernandez , 500 U.S. at 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ); see also Purkett v. Elem , 514 U.S. 765 , 767-68, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) ("The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible."). 2018Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's *1225 explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Id. (quoting Hernandez , 500 U.S. at 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ); see also Purkett v. Elem , 514 U.S. 765 , 767-68, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) ("The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible."). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Chakouiangreen2 sentences1989In Chakouian, 537 A.2d at 413 , we reviewed the Batson test and found that it should be literally applied. 1989In Chakouian, 537 A.2d at 413 , we reviewed the Batson test and found that it should be literally applied. | 1 | 2 |
Purkett v. Elemgreen2 sentences2018Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's *1225 explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Id. (quoting Hernandez , 500 U.S. at 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ); see also Purkett v. Elem , 514 U.S. 765 , 767-68, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) ("The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible."). 2018Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's *1225 explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Id. (quoting Hernandez , 500 U.S. at 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ); see also Purkett v. Elem , 514 U.S. 765 , 767-68, 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) ("The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diefenderfergreen1 sentence2013In this context, we have remarked that “[o]ne means through which improper vouching may occur is by admission of plea agreements phrased in a manner that suggests that the government has special knowledge that its witness is speaking the truth.” State v. Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d 12, 32-33 (R.I.2009) (quoting State v. Chakouian, 537 A.2d 409, 412 (R.I.1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Rhode Islandgreen2 sentences2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect 2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ponagreen2 sentences2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect 2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect | 1 | 1 |
In Re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003green2 sentences2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect 2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Rhode Islandgreen2 sentences2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect 2013See Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 , 30 & n. 1, 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Jennifer’s family members against the state, the City of Providence, the Attorney General, two prosecutors, and multiple Providence police officers for failure to protect her); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 312 F.Supp.2d 175, 176-77 (D.R.I.2004) (same); In re Court Order Dated October 22, 2003, 886 A.2d 342, 344-48 (R.I.2005) (appeal of members of news media who received contempt citations for violating a trial court order prohibiting the publication of information or photographs in connect | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences1994Although the Batson Court stated that a defendant was required to be of the same race as the excluded juror in order to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination, see Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1722 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 88 ; see also State v. Kelly, 554 A.2d 632, 634 (R.I.1989), in Powers the Court modified its ruling from Batson and held that a white defendant could assert a Batson challenge when black jurors are excluded from a jury by means of a race-based peremptory challenge, 499 U.S. at 404-05 , 111 S.Ct. at 1368 , 113 L.Ed.2d at 421 . 1994Although the Batson Court stated that a defendant was required to be of the same race as the excluded juror in order to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination, see Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1722 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 88 ; see also State v. Kelly, 554 A.2d 632, 634 (R.I.1989), in Powers the Court modified its ruling from Batson and held that a white defendant could assert a Batson challenge when black jurors are excluded from a jury by means of a race-based peremptory challenge, 499 U.S. at 404-05 , 111 S.Ct. at 1368 , 113 L.Ed.2d at 421 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Austin
green
2 sentences2018Thus, "the preliminary issue of whether * * * defendant had made a prima facie showing [became] moot." Austin , 642 A.2d at 678 (quoting Hernandez , 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ). 2018Thus, "the preliminary issue of whether * * * defendant had made a prima facie showing [became] moot." Austin , 642 A.2d at 678 (quoting Hernandez , 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Snyder v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2014Thus, the “ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008)). 2014Thus, the “ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Miller-El v. Cockrell
green
2 sentences2007It is because a trial justice’s finding of purposeful discrimination at this third step “largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2 Recent United States Supreme Court Batson Developments In 2003 — three years after defendant’s conviction in the instant case — the United *603 States Supreme Court imbued the Batson test with new vitality in the first of two companion decisions: Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (Miller-El I), 2007It is because a trial justice’s finding of purposeful discrimination at this third step “largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2 Recent United States Supreme Court Batson Developments In 2003 — three years after defendant’s conviction in the instant case — the United *603 States Supreme Court imbued the Batson test with new vitality in the first of two companion decisions: Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (Miller-El I), | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Miller-El v. Dretke
green
2 sentences2007It is because a trial justice’s finding of purposeful discrimination at this third step “largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2 Recent United States Supreme Court Batson Developments In 2003 — three years after defendant’s conviction in the instant case — the United *603 States Supreme Court imbued the Batson test with new vitality in the first of two companion decisions: Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (Miller-El I), 2007It is because a trial justice’s finding of purposeful discrimination at this third step “largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 . 2 Recent United States Supreme Court Batson Developments In 2003 — three years after defendant’s conviction in the instant case — the United *603 States Supreme Court imbued the Batson test with new vitality in the first of two companion decisions: Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (Miller-El I), | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.