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 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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. Pattersongreen2 sentences2026See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process."); id. at 366 (finding that the existence of a large discrepancy "in eve 2025This percentage is not sufficiently disparate from the overall racial makeup of Newberry County to suggest a systematic exclusion of black individuals from the jury selection process.1 See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; | 3 | 4 |
Duren v. Missourigreen2 sentences2026See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process."); id. at 366 (finding that the existence of a large discrepancy "in eve 2026See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process."); id. at 366 (finding that the existence of a large discrepancy "in eve | 2 | 4 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2025This percentage is not sufficiently disparate from the overall racial makeup of Newberry County to suggest a systematic exclusion of black individuals from the jury selection process.1 See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; 2025This percentage is not sufficiently disparate from the overall racial makeup of Newberry County to suggest a systematic exclusion of black individuals from the jury selection process.1 See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; | 1 | 2 |
State v. Baccusgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only. [An appellate court] is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous." (citation omitted)). 2025See State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only. [An appellate court] is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous." (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Georgegreen2 sentences2025This percentage is not sufficiently disparate from the overall racial makeup of Newberry County to suggest a systematic exclusion of black individuals from the jury selection process.1 See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; 2025This percentage is not sufficiently disparate from the overall racial makeup of Newberry County to suggest a systematic exclusion of black individuals from the jury selection process.1 See Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) ("In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.