8 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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. Fordgreen2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo | 1 | 2 |
State v. Aziakanougreen2 sentences2022Given our recognition of the greater protections Montanans have under the state constitution’s Dignity and Equal Protection Clauses, I would suggest that the Montana Constitution affords greater protection against discriminatory peremptory challenges than what the traditional Batson analysis offers. ¶44 Many judicial and academic commentators agree that the Batson framework fails to remedy the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.1 Because Batson prohibits only 1 Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 270 , 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2342 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[T]he use of race- and gende 2022Given our recognition of the greater protections Montanans have under the state constitution’s Dignity and Equal Protection Clauses, I would suggest that the Montana Constitution affords greater protection against discriminatory peremptory challenges than what the traditional Batson analysis offers. ¶44 Many judicial and academic commentators agree that the Batson framework fails to remedy the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.1 Because Batson prohibits only 1 Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 270 , 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2342 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[T]he use of race- and gende | 1 | 1 |
Miller-El v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2022Given our recognition of the greater protections Montanans have under the state constitution’s Dignity and Equal Protection Clauses, I would suggest that the Montana Constitution affords greater protection against discriminatory peremptory challenges than what the traditional Batson analysis offers. ¶44 Many judicial and academic commentators agree that the Batson framework fails to remedy the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.1 Because Batson prohibits only 1 Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 270 , 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2342 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[T]he use of race- and gende 2022Given our recognition of the greater protections Montanans have under the state constitution’s Dignity and Equal Protection Clauses, I would suggest that the Montana Constitution affords greater protection against discriminatory peremptory challenges than what the traditional Batson analysis offers. ¶44 Many judicial and academic commentators agree that the Batson framework fails to remedy the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.1 Because Batson prohibits only 1 Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 270 , 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2342 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[T]he use of race- and gende | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jeffersongreen2 sentences2022Given our recognition of the greater protections Montanans have under the state constitution’s Dignity and Equal Protection Clauses, I would suggest that the Montana Constitution affords greater protection against discriminatory peremptory challenges than what the traditional Batson analysis offers. ¶44 Many judicial and academic commentators agree that the Batson framework fails to remedy the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.1 Because Batson prohibits only 1 Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 270 , 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2342 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[T]he use of race- and gende 2022Given our recognition of the greater protections Montanans have under the state constitution’s Dignity and Equal Protection Clauses, I would suggest that the Montana Constitution affords greater protection against discriminatory peremptory challenges than what the traditional Batson analysis offers. ¶44 Many judicial and academic commentators agree that the Batson framework fails to remedy the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.1 Because Batson prohibits only 1 Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 270 , 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2342 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“[T]he use of race- and gende | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2022R. 37 (Washington court rule adopted in 2018 eliminating the requirement of “purposeful discrimination”); Andujar, 254 A.3d at 620-21, 630 (considering implicit bias as part of the Batson framework under the New Jersey constitution); Aziakanou, 498 P.3d at 407 n.12 (referring the issue to the advisory committee on the rules of criminal procedure); Washington v. Hicks, 181 P.3d 831, 838-39 (Wash. 2008) (concluding that, under the Washington Constitution, a trial judge has discretion to find a prima facie case of discrimination when the State removes the sole venire person from a constitutionall 2022R. 37 (Washington court rule adopted in 2018 eliminating the requirement of “purposeful discrimination”); Andujar, 254 A.3d at 620-21, 630 (considering implicit bias as part of the Batson framework under the New Jersey constitution); Aziakanou, 498 P.3d at 407 n.12 (referring the issue to the advisory committee on the rules of criminal procedure); Washington v. Hicks, 181 P.3d 831, 838-39 (Wash. 2008) (concluding that, under the Washington Constitution, a trial judge has discretion to find a prima facie case of discrimination when the State removes the sole venire person from a constitutionall | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2016State v. Carter, 415 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo, banc 2013). 2016State v. Carter, 415 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo, banc 2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McFaddengreen2 sentences2016State v. McFadden, 191 S.W.3d 648, 651 (Mo. banc 2006). 2016McFadden, 191 S.W.3d at 653 . | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Ford v. State, 2005 MT 151, ¶ 14 , 327 Mont. 378, ¶ 14 , 114 P.3d 244, ¶ 14 (citation omitted). 2 Parrish’s remaining claims are barred because he did not support them with appropriate facts and legal authority as required by § 46-21-104(1)(c) and (2), MCA. ¶5 Affirmed. /S/ KARLA M. 2006See Ford v. State, 2005 MT 151, ¶ 14 , 327 Mont. 378, ¶ 14 , 114 P.3d 244, ¶ 14 (citation omitted). 2 Parrish’s remaining claims are barred because he did not support them with appropriate facts and legal authority as required by § 46-21-104(1)(c) and (2), MCA. ¶5 Affirmed. /S/ KARLA M. | 1 | 1 |
Casiano v. Greenway Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2005See also Casiano v. Greenway Enterprises Inc., 2002 MT 93, ¶ 27 , 309 Mont. 358, ¶ 27 , 47 P.3d 432, ¶ 27 (holding that moving to discharge the jury based upon Batson after the jury had been selected, sworn, and the venire excused is untimely). ¶13 An untimely Batson challenge results in a waiver for several reasons. 2005See also Casiano v. Greenway Enterprises Inc., 2002 MT 93, ¶ 27 , 309 Mont. 358, ¶ 27 , 47 P.3d 432, ¶ 27 (holding that moving to discharge the jury based upon Batson after the jury had been selected, sworn, and the venire excused is untimely). ¶13 An untimely Batson challenge results in a waiver for several reasons. | 1 | 1 |
Bruner v. Yellowstone Countygreen2 sentences2002Bruner, 272 Mont. at 264 , 900 P.2d at 903 (citations omitted). ¶14 In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to discharge the jury based upon a Batson challenge, we will defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the district court’s application of the law de novo. 2002Bruner, 272 Mont. at 264 , 900 P.2d at 903 (citations omitted). ¶14 In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to discharge the jury based upon a Batson challenge, we will defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the district court’s application of the law de novo. | 1 | 1 |
| Batson v. Kentuckygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tuckergreen | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mario Biaggi, Stanley Simon, Richard Biaggi, Peter Neglia, John Mariotta, and Bernard Ehrlichgreen2 sentences2001See United States v. Biaggi (2d Cir. 1990), 909 F.2d 662, 679 ; Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte (3d Cir. 1986), 806 F.2d 73, 76 ; Morning, 128 F.3d at 216 ; United States v. Abou-Kassen (5th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d 161, 167 ; United States v. Rodriquez (11th Cir. 1990), 917 F.2d 1286, 1288 ; State v. Cummings (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), 838 S.W.2d 4, 6 ; Sorensen v. State, 2000 Wyo. 2001See United States v. Biaggi (2d Cir. 1990), 909 F.2d 662, 679 ; Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte (3d Cir. 1986), 806 F.2d 73, 76 ; Morning, 128 F.3d at 216 ; United States v. Abou-Kassen (5th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d 161, 167 ; United States v. Rodriquez (11th Cir. 1990), 917 F.2d 1286, 1288 ; State v. Cummings (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), 838 S.W.2d 4, 6 ; Sorensen v. State, 2000 Wyo. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Parrish
green
2 sentences2019Any racially-motivated reason for striking a prospective juror is prohibited under Batson , whether the prospective juror shares the racial identity of the defendant or not." Ford , ¶ 19 (citing *368 Powers , 499 U.S. at 409 , 111 S.Ct. at 1370 ). 5 Further, we have admonished trial courts to develop a record for appellate review of a Batson challenge and ruling, "a record that includes all relevant facts and information relied upon by the trial court to render its decision, as well as a full explanation of the court's rationale." State v. Parrish , 2005 MT 112 , ¶ 19, 327 Mont. 88 , 111 P.3d 2019Any racially-motivated reason for striking a prospective juror is prohibited under Batson , whether the prospective juror shares the racial identity of the defendant or not." Ford , ¶ 19 (citing *368 Powers , 499 U.S. at 409 , 111 S.Ct. at 1370 ). 5 Further, we have admonished trial courts to develop a record for appellate review of a Batson challenge and ruling, "a record that includes all relevant facts and information relied upon by the trial court to render its decision, as well as a full explanation of the court's rationale." State v. Parrish , 2005 MT 112 , ¶ 19, 327 Mont. 88 , 111 P.3d | 2 | 2006–2019 |
Darryl Tolbert v. Glenda Page
green
2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo | 2 | 2001–2019 |
Brewer v. Marshall, Sheriff
green
2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Barnaby
green
2 sentences2019We review the trial court's interpretation on sentencing questions regarding statutory interpretation to determine whether it is correct." ***23 State v. Barnaby , 2006 MT 203 , ¶ 56, 333 Mont. 220 , 142 P.3d 809 (citation omitted). 2019We review the trial court's interpretation on sentencing questions regarding statutory interpretation to determine whether it is correct." ***23 State v. Barnaby , 2006 MT 203 , ¶ 56, 333 Mont. 220 , 142 P.3d 809 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Powers v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2019Any racially-motivated reason for striking a prospective juror is prohibited under Batson , whether the prospective juror shares the racial identity of the defendant or not." Ford , ¶ 19 (citing *368 Powers , 499 U.S. at 409 , 111 S.Ct. at 1370 ). 5 Further, we have admonished trial courts to develop a record for appellate review of a Batson challenge and ruling, "a record that includes all relevant facts and information relied upon by the trial court to render its decision, as well as a full explanation of the court's rationale." State v. Parrish , 2005 MT 112 , ¶ 19, 327 Mont. 88 , 111 P.3d 2019Any racially-motivated reason for striking a prospective juror is prohibited under Batson , whether the prospective juror shares the racial identity of the defendant or not." Ford , ¶ 19 (citing *368 Powers , 499 U.S. at 409 , 111 S.Ct. at 1370 ). 5 Further, we have admonished trial courts to develop a record for appellate review of a Batson challenge and ruling, "a record that includes all relevant facts and information relied upon by the trial court to render its decision, as well as a full explanation of the court's rationale." State v. Parrish , 2005 MT 112 , ¶ 19, 327 Mont. 88 , 111 P.3d | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. J. Foster
neutral
2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law." State v. Foster , 2017 MT 118 , ¶ 6, 387 Mont. 402 , 394 P.3d 916 . ¶16 "[W]hen considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has *362 exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Veis
green
2 sentences2005State v. Veis, 1998 MT 162, ¶ 16 , 289 Mont. 450, ¶ 16 , 962 P.2d 1153, ¶ 16 . 2005State v. Veis, 1998 MT 162, ¶ 16 , 289 Mont. 450, ¶ 16 , 962 P.2d 1153, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Abou-Kassem
green
2 sentences2001See United States v. Biaggi (2d Cir. 1990), 909 F.2d 662, 679 ; Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte (3d Cir. 1986), 806 F.2d 73, 76 ; Morning, 128 F.3d at 216 ; United States v. Abou-Kassen (5th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d 161, 167 ; United States v. Rodriquez (11th Cir. 1990), 917 F.2d 1286, 1288 ; State v. Cummings (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), 838 S.W.2d 4, 6 ; Sorensen v. State, 2000 Wyo. 2001See United States v. Biaggi (2d Cir. 1990), 909 F.2d 662, 679 ; Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte (3d Cir. 1986), 806 F.2d 73, 76 ; Morning, 128 F.3d at 216 ; United States v. Abou-Kassen (5th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d 161, 167 ; United States v. Rodriquez (11th Cir. 1990), 917 F.2d 1286, 1288 ; State v. Cummings (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), 838 S.W.2d 4, 6 ; Sorensen v. State, 2000 Wyo. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Weinberger green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . 2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Finley
green
2 sentences2001See State v. Tucker, 2000 MT 255 , 301 Mont. 466 , 10 P.3d 832 ; State v. Clausell, 2001 MT 62 , 305 Mont. 1 , 22 P.3d 1111 ; State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126 , 915 P.2d 208 (overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ); State v. Weinberger (1983), 204 Mont. 278 , 665 P.2d 202 . ¶28 We conclude that because Ford’s counsel waited until after the jury was impaneled and sworn and the venire dismissed to raise his Batson challenge, his motion was untimely and was therefore waived. 2001See State v. Tucker, 2000 MT 255 , 301 Mont. 466 , 10 P.3d 832 ; State v. Clausell, 2001 MT 62 , 305 Mont. 1 , 22 P.3d 1111 ; State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126 , 915 P.2d 208 (overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ); State v. Weinberger (1983), 204 Mont. 278 , 665 P.2d 202 . ¶28 We conclude that because Ford’s counsel waited until after the jury was impaneled and sworn and the venire dismissed to raise his Batson challenge, his motion was untimely and was therefore waived. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Clausell green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Allen v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Gallagher green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Georgia v. McCollum
green
2 sentences2001It has been extended to prevent a defendant in a criminal action from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race (Georgia v. McCollum (1992), 505 U.S. 42 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33 ), and has also been applied to private litigants in a civil case. 2001It has been extended to prevent a defendant in a criminal action from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race (Georgia v. McCollum (1992), 505 U.S. 42 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33 ), and has also been applied to private litigants in a civil case. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Cummings
green
2 sentences2001See United States v. Biaggi (2d Cir. 1990), 909 F.2d 662, 679 ; Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte (3d Cir. 1986), 806 F.2d 73, 76 ; Morning, 128 F.3d at 216 ; United States v. Abou-Kassen (5th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d 161, 167 ; United States v. Rodriquez (11th Cir. 1990), 917 F.2d 1286, 1288 ; State v. Cummings (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), 838 S.W.2d 4, 6 ; Sorensen v. State, 2000 Wyo. 2001See United States v. Biaggi (2d Cir. 1990), 909 F.2d 662, 679 ; Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte (3d Cir. 1986), 806 F.2d 73, 76 ; Morning, 128 F.3d at 216 ; United States v. Abou-Kassen (5th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d 161, 167 ; United States v. Rodriquez (11th Cir. 1990), 917 F.2d 1286, 1288 ; State v. Cummings (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), 838 S.W.2d 4, 6 ; Sorensen v. State, 2000 Wyo. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2001LEXIS 143 , 6 P.3d 657, 662 ; State v. Harris (1988), 157 Ariz. 35, 36 , 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 . ¶25 There are several reasons why a Batson challenge must be raised before the jury is sworn and the venire dismissed. 2001LEXIS 143 , 6 P.3d 657, 662 ; State v. Harris (1988), 157 Ariz. 35, 36 , 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 . ¶25 There are several reasons why a Batson challenge must be raised before the jury is sworn and the venire dismissed. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Erwin
green
1 sentence2001Ct. App. 1987), 726 S.W.2d 636 , 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 6672 , the Texas Court of Appeals, citing United States v. Erwin (5th Cir. 1986), 793 F.2d 656 , explained that a Batson objection made before the venire is dismissed puts the prosecutor on notice that he or she may be required to provide race-neutral explanations for the peremptory strikes. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Government of the Virgin Islands v. Frederick Forte green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Douglas Dobynes, United States of America v. Earl Wright, Jr.
green
2 sentences2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . 2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Osvaldo Rodriguez, A/K/A Osvaldo Hernandez-Marquez Ricardo Leon green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sorensen v. State
green
2 sentences2001LEXIS 143 , 6 P.3d 657, 662 ; State v. Harris (1988), 157 Ariz. 35, 36 , 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 . ¶25 There are several reasons why a Batson challenge must be raised before the jury is sworn and the venire dismissed. 2001LEXIS 143 , 6 P.3d 657, 662 ; State v. Harris (1988), 157 Ariz. 35, 36 , 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 . ¶25 There are several reasons why a Batson challenge must be raised before the jury is sworn and the venire dismissed. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Thomas Elbert Cashwell
green
2 sentences2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . 2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bob D. Morning, Sr. v. Zapata Protein (Usa), Incorporated, Formerly Known as Zapata Haynie Corporation
green
2 sentences2001Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc. (4th Cir. 1997), 128 F.3d 213 . ¶22 When establishing the elements of a Batson challenge, the Batson Court did not specify at what point in time in the proceedings an objection must be made in order to be timely. 2001Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc. (4th Cir. 1997), 128 F.3d 213 . ¶22 When establishing the elements of a Batson challenge, the Batson Court did not specify at what point in time in the proceedings an objection must be made in order to be timely. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Allen v. Estelle green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Baugh v. United States
green
2 sentences2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . 2001State v. Wilson (1993), 117 N.M. 11 , 868 P.2d 656 ; United States v. Cashwell (11th Cir. 1992), 950 F.2d 699, 704 ; United States v. Dobynes (8th Cir. 1990), 905 F.2d 1192, 1196 , cert. denied (1990), 498 U.S. 877 , 111 S.Ct. 206 , 112 L.Ed.2d 167 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.