9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duren v. Missourigreen2 sentences1998Cf. Duren, 439 U.S. at 366 , 99 S.Ct. at 669 , 58 L.Ed.2d at 588 (discrepancy “not just occasionally, but in every weekly venire for a period of nearly a year” showed systematic exclusion). {¶ 32} Turning to McNeill’s equal protection claim, we base our analysis on the test set forth in Fulton: “A defendant may also reasonably bring a federal equal protection challenge to the selection and composition of the petit jury by adducing statistical evidence which shows a significant discrepancy between the percentage of a certain class of people in the community and the percentage of that class on t 1998Cf. Duren, 439 U.S. at 366 , 99 S.Ct. at 669 , 58 L.Ed.2d at 588 (discrepancy “not just occasionally, but in every weekly venire for a period of nearly a year” showed systematic exclusion). {¶ 32} Turning to McNeill’s equal protection claim, we base our analysis on the test set forth in Fulton: “A defendant may also reasonably bring a federal equal protection challenge to the selection and composition of the petit jury by adducing statistical evidence which shows a significant discrepancy between the percentage of a certain class of people in the community and the percentage of that class on t | 3 | 4 |
State ex rel. Wilson v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2012Garcia’s unsubstantiated claims as to under-representation, pointing solely to his own jury venue, do not demonstrate any systematic exclusion over time. {¶35} In Fulton, the Ohio Supreme Court further stated that: “[a] defendant may also reasonably bring a federal equal protection challenge to the selection and composition of the petit jury by adducing statistical evidence which shows a significant discrepancy between the percentage of a certain class of people in the community and the percentage of that class on the jury venires, which evidence tends to show discriminatory purpose, an essent 2006Again, Appellant did not provide any statistical data to show the "underrepresentation [of a distinct group] over a significant period of time" or "expose the selection procedure as susceptible of abuse or racially partial." McNeil, 83 Ohio St.3d at 444 , citing Fulton, 57 Ohio St.3d at 122 -24 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fulton
green
2 sentences2012Garcia’s unsubstantiated claims as to under-representation, pointing solely to his own jury venue, do not demonstrate any systematic exclusion over time. {¶35} In Fulton, the Ohio Supreme Court further stated that: “[a] defendant may also reasonably bring a federal equal protection challenge to the selection and composition of the petit jury by adducing statistical evidence which shows a significant discrepancy between the percentage of a certain class of people in the community and the percentage of that class on the jury venires, which evidence tends to show discriminatory purpose, an essent 2012Garcia’s unsubstantiated claims as to under-representation, pointing solely to his own jury venue, do not demonstrate any systematic exclusion over time. {¶35} In Fulton, the Ohio Supreme Court further stated that: “[a] defendant may also reasonably bring a federal equal protection challenge to the selection and composition of the petit jury by adducing statistical evidence which shows a significant discrepancy between the percentage of a certain class of people in the community and the percentage of that class on the jury venires, which evidence tends to show discriminatory purpose, an essent | 8 | 1998–2012 |
Castaneda v. Partida
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 122 , 566 N.E.2d at 1199 , quoting Castaneda v. Partida (1977), 430 U.S. 482, 494-495 , 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1280-1281 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498, 510-511 . {¶ 34} On these terms, McNeill’s equal protection challenge also fails. 1998Id. at 122 , 566 N.E.2d at 1199 , quoting Castaneda v. Partida (1977), 430 U.S. 482, 494-495 , 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1280-1281 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498, 510-511 . {¶ 34} On these terms, McNeill’s equal protection challenge also fails. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.
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.