opponent of a peremptory challenge (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

opponent of a peremptory challenge in Arkansas

8 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2005 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
MacKintrush v. Stategreen
ark · 1998 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2005
2 sentences

2005The Court adopted a three-part test for a trial court to use in determining whether a peremptory strike violates the defendant’s rights, which we outlined in MacKintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 390 , 978 S.W.2d 293 (1998): (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make aprimafacie case of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must come forward with a race-neutral explanation; and (3) the trial court must decide whether the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination.

2005The Court adopted a three-part test for a trial court to use in determining whether a peremptory strike violates the defendant’s rights, which we outlined in MacKintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 390 , 978 S.W.2d 293 (1998): (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make aprimafacie case of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must come forward with a race-neutral explanation; and (3) the trial court must decide whether the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination.

14

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Purkett v. Elem green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

2003In MacKintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 390 , 978 S.W.2d 293 (1998), this court discussed Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995), the United States Supreme Court case which outlined three steps for a trial court to follow when a Batson challenge is made: (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must come forward with a race-neutral explanation; and (3) the trial court must decide whether the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination.

2001To test whether a peremptory strike should be disallowed, a three-step process was articulated in Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995): Once the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made out a prima fade case of discrimination (step one), the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step two).

51997–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-208 (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

GA 80 (1997–2026) TX 30 (1997–2024) CA 13 (2001–2020) MN 9 (2002–2019) AR 8 (1997–2005) OH 6 (1999–2024) UT 6 (1996–2006) FL 6 (1996–2018) NV 5 (1996–2016) NM 5 (1999–2025) VA 5 (1995–2000) AL 4 (1995–1996) SC 4 (2006–2013) CO 3 (2007–2019) LA 3 (1996–2011) MO 3 (2008–2019) MS 3 (2001–2002) MI 3 (2004–2025) MD 3 (1995–2019) AZ 3 (1998–2021) NC 3 (2022–2022) DC 2 (2001–2015) IA 2 (2020–2022) IN 2 (1995–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check