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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Georgia v. McCollumgreen2 sentences2006The Court of Appeals explained that, "(allthough one's religious beliefs may render a prospective juror unsuitable for service in a particular case, one's religious affiliation, like one's race or gender, bears no relation to that person's ability to serve as a juror." Id. (emphasis in original) (citing (Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 59 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992) ("In our heterogenous society policy as well as constitutional considerations militate against the divisive assumption-as a per se rule-that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin, the accid 2006The Court of Appeals explained that, "(allthough one's religious beliefs may render a prospective juror unsuitable for service in a particular case, one's religious affiliation, like one's race or gender, bears no relation to that person's ability to serve as a juror." Id. (emphasis in original) (citing (Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 59 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992) ("In our heterogenous society policy as well as constitutional considerations militate against the divisive assumption-as a per se rule-that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin, the accid | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2006The Court of Appeals explained that, "(allthough one's religious beliefs may render a prospective juror unsuitable for service in a particular case, one's religious affiliation, like one's race or gender, bears no relation to that person's ability to serve as a juror." Id. (emphasis in original) (citing (Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 59 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992) ("In our heterogenous society policy as well as constitutional considerations militate against the divisive assumption-as a per se rule-that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin, the accid | 1 | 1 |
Brogden v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Richardson v. State, 575 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (trial court could properly raise issue of whether State could justify excluding some minority venire members); Brogden v. State, 102 Md.App. 423 , 649 A.2d 1196 (1994) ("trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she observes what he perceives to be discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges"); People v. Nelson, 214 A.D.2d 411 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1995) (trial court did not improperly inject itself into proceedings by sua sponte noting existence of prima facie Batson violation); American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casu 1996Richardson v. State, 575 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (trial court could properly raise issue of whether State could justify excluding some minority venire members); Brogden v. State, 102 Md.App. 423 , 649 A.2d 1196 (1994) ("trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she observes what he perceives to be discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges"); People v. Nelson, 214 A.D.2d 411 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1995) (trial court did not improperly inject itself into proceedings by sua sponte noting existence of prima facie Batson violation); American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gary Wayne Oswalt v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2015Id. [22] By contrast, for-cause motions are available to exclude jurors whose views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his or her duties as a juror in accordance with the instructions given and the oath taken and thus violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Purkett v. Elem
green
2 sentences2011Each of these reasons was a permissible race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. "`The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.'" Jeter, 888 N.E.2d at 1264 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam)). 2011Each of these reasons was a permissible race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. "`The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.'" Jeter, 888 N.E.2d at 1264 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Jeter v. State
green
2 sentences2011Each of these reasons was a permissible race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. “ ‘The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.’” Jeter, 888 N.E.2d at 1264 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam)). 2011Each of these reasons was a permissible race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. "`The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.'" Jeter, 888 N.E.2d at 1264 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1996Discussion We address the identical issues in Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372 (Ind.1996), also decided today. 2 In both Williams and this case, we do not find that it constituted reversible error for the trial court to require each side to present a race-neutral justification for each of its peremptory challenges. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casualty Co.
neutral
2 sentences1996Richardson v. State, 575 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (trial court could properly raise issue of whether State could justify excluding some minority venire members); Brogden v. State, 102 Md.App. 423 , 649 A.2d 1196 (1994) ("trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she observes what he perceives to be discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges"); People v. Nelson, 214 A.D.2d 411 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1995) (trial court did not improperly inject itself into proceedings by sua sponte noting existence of prima facie Batson violation); American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casu 1996Richardson v. State, 575 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (trial court could properly raise issue of whether State could justify excluding some minority venire members); Brogden v. State, 102 Md.App. 423 , 649 A.2d 1196 (1994) ("trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she observes what he perceives to be discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges"); People v. Nelson, 214 A.D.2d 411 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1995) (trial court did not improperly inject itself into proceedings by sua sponte noting existence of prima facie Batson violation); American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casu | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Frias
neutral
1 sentence1996Richardson v. State, 575 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (trial court could properly raise issue of whether State could justify excluding some minority venire members); Brogden v. State, 102 Md.App. 423 , 649 A.2d 1196 (1994) ("trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she observes what he perceives to be discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges"); People v. Nelson, 214 A.D.2d 411 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1995) (trial court did not improperly inject itself into proceedings by sua sponte noting existence of prima facie Batson violation); American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casu | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Nelson
neutral
1 sentence1996Richardson v. State, 575 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (trial court could properly raise issue of whether State could justify excluding some minority venire members); Brogden v. State, 102 Md.App. 423 , 649 A.2d 1196 (1994) ("trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she observes what he perceives to be discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges"); People v. Nelson, 214 A.D.2d 411 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1995) (trial court did not improperly inject itself into proceedings by sua sponte noting existence of prima facie Batson violation); American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casu | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Richardson v. State
green
1 sentence1996Richardson v. State, 575 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (trial court could properly raise issue of whether State could justify excluding some minority venire members); Brogden v. State, 102 Md.App. 423 , 649 A.2d 1196 (1994) ("trial judge need not sit idly by when he or she observes what he perceives to be discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges"); People v. Nelson, 214 A.D.2d 411 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1995) (trial court did not improperly inject itself into proceedings by sua sponte noting existence of prima facie Batson violation); American Home Assurance Co. v. National Casu | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Nicks v. State
green
1 sentence1994Nicks v. State (1992), Ind., 598 N.E.2d 520, 523 ; Isom, supra, at 1351 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Isom v. State
green
1 sentence1994Nicks v. State (1992), Ind., 598 N.E.2d 520, 523 ; Isom, supra, at 1351 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Mays v. State
green
1 sentence1984Mays v. State, (1984) Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1161 ; Hoskins v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 419, 422 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Hoskins v. State
green
1 sentence1984Mays v. State, (1984) Ind., 469 N.E.2d 1161 ; Hoskins v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 419, 422 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.