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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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. Roquegreen2 sentences2016“Implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretext[ual].” Newell, 212 Ariz. at 401 , ¶ 54 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995)). ¶9 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s motives for a peremptory strike for clear error.” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 203, ¶ 12 . 2014“This is not because the individual jurors dismissed by the prosecution may have been predisposed to favor the defendant.” Id. ”Rather, it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process’ . . . and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt.” Id. (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 556 (1979)); see also State v. Jordan, 171 Ariz. 62, 66 , 828 P.2d 786, 790 (App. 1992) (stating that a person of Asian descent is a member of a cognizable racial group). ¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s mot | 3 | 3 |
State v. Murraygreen2 sentences2016State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 24 (1995). 2006State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 24 , 906 P.2d 542, 557 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Canezgreen2 sentences2010Batson challenges are subject to a three-step analysis: “(1) the party challenging the strike must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) the striking party must provide a race-neutral reason for the strike; and (3) if a race-neutral explanation is provided, the trial court must determine whether the challenger has carried its burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination.” State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 146 ¶ 22, 42 P.3d 564, 577 (2002). “[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Purkett v. 2010Batson challenges are subject to a three-step analysis: “(1) the party challenging the strike must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) the striking party must provide a race-neutral reason for the strike; and (3) if a race-neutral explanation is provided, the trial court must determine whether the challenger has carried its burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination.” State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 146 ¶ 22, 42 P.3d 564, 577 (2002). “[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Purkett v. | 2 | 2 |
Purkett v. Elemgreen2 sentences2016“Implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretext[ual].” Newell, 212 Ariz. at 401 , ¶ 54 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995)). ¶9 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s motives for a peremptory strike for clear error.” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 203, ¶ 12 . 2010Batson challenges are subject to a three-step analysis: “(1) the party challenging the strike must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) the striking party must provide a race-neutral reason for the strike; and (3) if a race-neutral explanation is provided, the trial court must determine whether the challenger has carried its burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination.” State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 , 146 ¶ 22, 42 P.3d 564, 577 (2002). “[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Purkett v. | 1 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardygreen1 sentence2020State v. Hardy, 230 Ariz. 281, 285, ¶ 11 (2012). ¶16 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the prosecution from striking prospective jurors based solely upon race. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jordangreen2 sentences2014“This is not because the individual jurors dismissed by the prosecution may have been predisposed to favor the defendant.” Id. ”Rather, it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process’ . . . and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt.” Id. (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 556 (1979)); see also State v. Jordan, 171 Ariz. 62, 66 , 828 P.2d 786, 790 (App. 1992) (stating that a person of Asian descent is a member of a cognizable racial group). ¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s mot 2014“This is not because the individual jurors dismissed by the prosecution may have been predisposed to favor the defendant.” Id. ”Rather, it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process’ . . . and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt.” Id. (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 556 (1979)); see also State v. Jordan, 171 Ariz. 62, 66 , 828 P.2d 786, 790 (App. 1992) (stating that a person of Asian descent is a member of a cognizable racial group). ¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s mot | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2014“This is not because the individual jurors dismissed by the prosecution may have been predisposed to favor the defendant.” Id. ”Rather, it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process’ . . . and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt.” Id. (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 556 (1979)); see also State v. Jordan, 171 Ariz. 62, 66 , 828 P.2d 786, 790 (App. 1992) (stating that a person of Asian descent is a member of a cognizable racial group). ¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s mot | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Newell
green
1 sentence2016“Implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretext[ual].” Newell, 212 Ariz. at 401 , ¶ 54 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995)). ¶9 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s motives for a peremptory strike for clear error.” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 203, ¶ 12 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Powers v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2014“This is not because the individual jurors dismissed by the prosecution may have been predisposed to favor the defendant.” Id. ”Rather, it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process’ . . . and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt.” Id. (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 556 (1979)); see also State v. Jordan, 171 Ariz. 62, 66 , 828 P.2d 786, 790 (App. 1992) (stating that a person of Asian descent is a member of a cognizable racial group). ¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s mot 2014“This is not because the individual jurors dismissed by the prosecution may have been predisposed to favor the defendant.” Id. ”Rather, it is because racial discrimination in the selection of jurors ‘casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process’ . . . and places the fairness of a criminal proceeding in doubt.” Id. (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 556 (1979)); see also State v. Jordan, 171 Ariz. 62, 66 , 828 P.2d 786, 790 (App. 1992) (stating that a person of Asian descent is a member of a cognizable racial group). ¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s mot | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2006In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that excluding a potential juror on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 476 U.S. 79, 89 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). ¶ 12 We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s motives for a peremptory strike for clear error. 2006In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that excluding a potential juror on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 476 U.S. 79, 89 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). ¶ 12 We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s motives for a peremptory strike for clear error. | 1 | 2006–2006 |