attorney who exercises challenge in Indiana

9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Wright v. Stategreen ind · 1997 · cited in 4 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2005 2 sentences 2005Id. 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520	2	4
Jeter v. Stategreen ind · 2008 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2012–2020 2 sentences 2020As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the [proponent’s] state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.” Jeter, 888 N.E.2d at 1264-65 (some internal citations and quotations omitted). [21] We find no evidence undermining the demeanor and credibility of the State when it offered its race-neutral explanation for striking Mr. M. 2012As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the [proponent’s] state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’ Jeter, 888 N.E.2d at 1264-65 (citations omitted).	2	2
Williams v. Stategreen ind · 1996 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1997–2000 2 sentences 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 1997Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1869 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 *1105 (1991); United, States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996).	2	2
United States v. John T. Hunter, Jr.green ca7 · 1996 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1997–2000 2 sentences 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 1997Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1869 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 *1105 (1991); United, States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996).	2	2
Hernandez v. New Yorkgreen scotus · 1991 · cited in 5 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1997–2011 2 sentences 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520	1	5
Batson v. Kentuckygreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1104-05 (Ind.1997) (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991)); see also Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference"). 2005Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1104-05 (Ind.1997) (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991)); see also Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference").	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Hunter v. United States red scotus · 1996 2 sentences 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 1997Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1869 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 *1105 (1991); United, States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996).	2	1997–2000
Garza Cantu v. United States green scotus · 1996 2 sentences 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 1997Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1869 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 *1105 (1991); United, States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996).	2	1997–2000
Aguilar Riley Ozmen v. New Mexico green scotus · 1996 1 sentence 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520	1	2000–2000
Mitchell v. Albuquerque Board of Education green scotus · 1997 1 sentence 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520	1	2000–2000
White v. O'Connor green scotus · 1997 1 sentence 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520	1	2000–2000
Dye v. Michigan green scotus · 1997 1 sentence 2000“The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact which is accorded great deference on appeal, because the best evidence of discriminatory intent often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.” Wright, 690 N.E.2d at 1104 -05 (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); United States v. Hunter, 86 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 985 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520	1	2000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IN § Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

AL 37 (1992–2018) TX 36 (1992–2023) IL 20 (1991–2025) TN 15 (1992–2026) OH 15 (2000–2025) CA 13 (1997–2023) KS 11 (1994–2021) RI 10 (1992–2018) PA 10 (2002–2018) CO 9 (2008–2024) IN 9 (1997–2020) MO 8 (1992–2002) GA 7 (1995–2020) MI 6 (2005–2021) OK 6 (1994–2021) VA 6 (1992–2018) KY 5 (2006–2020) NY 4 (1994–2024) SC 4 (1991–1997) NC 4 (1991–2020) MS 4 (2007–2023) DC 4 (2005–2023) AR 3 (1996–1997) MD 3 (2004–2019) WA 3 (2008–2017) WY 3 (2000–2020) LA 3 (2006–2018) OR 3 (1993–2001) AZ 2 (2010–2022) WV 2 (1993–2001) NE 2 (1995–2003) IA 2 (2022–2024) ID 2 (2020–2025) UT 2 (1997–2008)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check