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.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dyegreen2 sentences2013To prevail before the post-conviction court under the federal standard, it was the defendant’s burden to “‘first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question ... and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’ ” Dye, 784 N.E.2d at 472 (alteration in original) (quoting McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845, 850 , 78 L.Ed.2d 663 , *1251 671 (1984)). 2003To obtain a new trial, the defendant "'must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question ... and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause'" Id. (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845 ). | 3 | 4 |
Christopher Rondeau v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2019Rondeau v. State, 48 N.E.3d 907, 916 (Ind. Ct. 6 Johnson also contends that Layne’s “disclosure would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 39. | 1 | 1 |
Daniel Ray Wilkes v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014To prevail under the federal standard, the moving party must “first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question ... and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Wilkes, 984 N.E.2d at 1250 (quotations omitted; omission original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
green
2 sentences2020The defendant must then further show that a correct response “‘would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’” Id. 2013The two-part test states that in order to obtain a new trial, the defendant “must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question . . . and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.”[4] Id. at 556 , 104 S. Ct. at 850 . 4 Ind. Code § 35-37-1-5 (a) provides: The following are good causes for challenge to any person called as a juror in any criminal trial: (1) That the person was a member of the grand jury that found the indictment. (2) That the person has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or in | 6 | 2000–2020 |
DISPLAY FIXTURES CO., ETC. v. RL Hatcher, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Display Fixtures, supra, 438 N.E.2d at 31 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.