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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bakergreen2 sentences2023DISCUSSION “ ‘Peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude prospective jurors based on group membership such as race or gender.’ [Citations.] ‘Excluding even a single prospective juror for reasons impermissible under Batson and Wheeler requires reversal.’ [Citation.] When a party opposing a peremptory strike makes a prima facie case that the strike was motivated by impermissible discrimination (step 1), the proponent of the strike must offer a nondiscriminatory reason for that challenge (step 2). 6 [Citation.] The question then becomes (step 3) whether the opponent of the peremptory challe 2022(Battle, at p. 772; Reed, at 10 p. 999.) “When a party opposing a peremptory strike makes a prima facie case that the strike was motivated by impermissible discrimination (step 1), the proponent of the strike must offer a nondiscriminatory reason for that challenge (step 2). [Citation.] The question then becomes (step 3) whether the opponent of the peremptory challenge has shown it “‘more likely than not that the challenge was improperly motivated.’”” (People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1071 ; see Battle, at p. 772; People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 538 .)6 “[W]here (1) the trial cour | 2 | 3 |
Purkett v. Elemgreen2 sentences2021(Armstrong, at p. 765.) The question then becomes (step 3) whether the opponent of the peremptory challenge has shown it “ ‘more likely than not that the challenge was improperly motivated.’ ” (Id., at p. 766; see also Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 (Purkett).) The prosecution in this case peremptorily struck both prospective jurors who identified themselves as Black and had not previously been excused for hardship or cause: Prospective Jurors R.T. 2021(Armstrong, at p. 765.) The question then becomes (step 3) whether the opponent of the peremptory challenge has shown it ‘ “more likely than not that the challenge was improperly motivated.” ’ (Id., at p. 766; see also Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 [ ] (Purkett).)” (People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1071 (Baker).) Here, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike three of the four prospective African-American jurors remaining after for cause challenges. | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Clyde Major Thompson, AKA Clyde Johnsongreen2 sentences2000If the prosecutor acknowledges that he challenged a prospective juror for an impermissible reason (see U.S. v. Thompson (9th Cir.1987) 827 F.2d 1254, 1256, fn. 1 ), then, of course, the Wheeler motion must be granted. 2000If the prosecutor acknowledges that he challenged a prospective juror for an impermissible reason (see U.S. v. Thompson (9th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 1254, 1256, fn. 1 ), then, of course, the Wheeler motion must be granted. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2000Third, from all the circumstances of the case he must show a strong likelihood [or reasonable inference] that such persons are being challenged because of their group association ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1187-1188 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 .) Next, the burden shifts to the challenged party to provide a race-neutral explanation for the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 1284 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 .) At the third step of the Wheeler challenge process—the determination by the trial court whether the opponent of the pere 2000Third, from all the circumstances of the case he must show a strong likelihood [or reasonable inference] that such persons are being challenged because of their group association ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1187-1188 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 .) Next, the burden shifts to the challenged party to provide a race-neutral explanation for the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 1284 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 .) At the third step of the Wheeler challenge process—the determination by the trial court whether the opponent of the pere | 1 | 2 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2023(People v. Smith (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1134, 1147 [when trial court makes a prima facie finding of group bias and evaluates prosecutor’s reasons for challenge, “the adequacy of the prima facie showing becomes moot”].) “ ‘The existence or nonexistence of purposeful racial discrimination is a question of fact.’ [Citation.] [¶] The answer to this factual question will ordinarily depend ‘on the subjective genuineness of the race-neutral reasons given for the peremptory challenge.’ [Citation.] A justification based on a mischaracterization of the record could reveal a discriminatory motive [citation], b | 1 | 1 |
Guzman v. Stategreen1 sentence2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Miles
green
1 sentence2022(Battle, at p. 772; Reed, at 10 p. 999.) “When a party opposing a peremptory strike makes a prima facie case that the strike was motivated by impermissible discrimination (step 1), the proponent of the strike must offer a nondiscriminatory reason for that challenge (step 2). [Citation.] The question then becomes (step 3) whether the opponent of the peremptory challenge has shown it “‘more likely than not that the challenge was improperly motivated.’”” (People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1071 ; see Battle, at p. 772; People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 538 .)6 “[W]here (1) the trial cour | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Lovelady
green
2 sentences2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. 2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Peeler
green
2 sentences2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. 2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Valdez v. People
green
1 sentence2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gilmore
green
2 sentences2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. 2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harris v. Kuhlmann
green
1 sentence2007(See, e.g., decisions from Colorado [Valdez v. People (Colo. 1998) 966 P.2d 587, 590 ], Connecticut [State v. Peeler (2004) 267 Conn. 611 [ 841 A.2d 181, 192 ]], Illinois [People v. Lovelady (1991) 221 Ill.App.3d 829 [ 164 Ill.Dec. 273 , 582 N.E.2d 1217, 1226 ]], New Jersey [State v. Gilmore (1986) 103 N.J. 508 [ 511 A.2d. 1150, 1166 ]], and Texas [Guzman v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) 85 S.W.3d 242, 255, fn. 48 ]; and federal cases from the Second Circuit [Harris v. Kuhlmann (2d Cir. 2003) 346 F.3d 330 , 343 [N.Y.]], and the Sixth Circuit [Roberts ex rel. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Box
green
2 sentences2000Third, from all the circumstances of the case he must show a strong likelihood [or reasonable inference] that such persons are being challenged because of their group association ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1187-1188 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 .) Next, the burden shifts to the challenged party to provide a race-neutral explanation for the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 1284 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 .) At the third step of the Wheeler challenge process—the determination by the trial court whether the opponent of the pere 2000Third, from all the circumstances of the case he must show a strong likelihood [or reasonable inference] that such persons are being challenged because of their group association ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1187-1188 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 .) Next, the burden shifts to the challenged party to provide a race-neutral explanation for the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 1284 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 , 989 P.2d 645 .) At the third step of the Wheeler challenge process—the determination by the trial court whether the opponent of the pere | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.