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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller-El v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2024(Flowers v. Mississippi (2019) 588 U.S. 284 , 311–312; Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 247, fn. 6 .) But “[i]f a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination.” (Miller-El, at p. 241.) Because this case was tried before Miller-El and Lenix established the relevance of comparative juror analysis, the parties did not explore these issues in the trial court. 2024(Flowers v. Mississippi (2019) 588 U.S. 284 , 311–312; Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 247, fn. 6 .) But “[i]f a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination.” (Miller-El, at p. 241.) Because this case was tried before Miller-El and Lenix established the relevance of comparative juror analysis, the parties did not explore these issues in the trial court. | 2 | 2 |
The People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2018As I have explained elsewhere, such analysis is part of what it means to consider all relevant circumstances at Batson 's first stage; no other jurisdiction has rejected the relevance of comparative juror analysis in testing a hypothesized reason for a contested strike; and our case law declining to engage in such analysis defies "a mountain of contrary authority." ( Sánchez , at p. 492, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 682 , 375 P.3d 812 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.) [collecting cases]; see Harris , at pp. 874-876, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 364 , 306 P.3d 1195 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.).) Here, at least three non-black jurors s 2018As I have explained elsewhere, such analysis is part of what it means to consider all relevant circumstances at Batson 's first stage; no other jurisdiction has rejected the relevance of comparative juror analysis in testing a hypothesized reason for a contested strike; and our case law declining to engage in such analysis defies "a mountain of contrary authority." ( Sánchez , at p. 492, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 682 , 375 P.3d 812 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.) [collecting cases]; see Harris , at pp. 874-876, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 364 , 306 P.3d 1195 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.).) Here, at least three non-black jurors s | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2013(See, e.g., Boyd v. Newland (9th Cir. 2006) 467 F.3d 1139, 1149 [“[Bjecause comparative juror analysis assists a court in determining whether the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference of discrimination, we believe that this analysis is called for on appeal even when the trial court ruled that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing at the first step of the Batson analysis.”]; People v. Davis (2008) 231 Ill.2d 349 [ 326 Ill.Dec. 21 , 899 N.E.2d 238, 246 ] [“We see no reason why a comparative juror analysis would not also be a relevant factor in the totality of fact 2013(See, e.g., Boyd v. Newland (9th Cir. 2006) 467 F.3d 1139, 1149 [“[Bjecause comparative juror analysis assists a court in determining whether the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference of discrimination, we believe that this analysis is called for on appeal even when the trial court ruled that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing at the first step of the Batson analysis.”]; People v. Davis (2008) 231 Ill.2d 349 [ 326 Ill.Dec. 21 , 899 N.E.2d 238, 246 ] [“We see no reason why a comparative juror analysis would not also be a relevant factor in the totality of fact | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Gaetzgreen2 sentences2013(See, e.g., Boyd v. Newland (9th Cir. 2006) 467 F.3d 1139, 1149 [―[B]ecause comparative juror analysis assists a court in determining whether the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference of discrimination, we believe that this analysis is called for on appeal even when the trial court ruled that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing at the first step of the Batson analysis.‖]; 18 People v. Davis (Ill. 2008) 899 N.E.2d 238, 246 [―We see no reason why a comparative juror analysis would not also be a relevant factor in the totality of factors that must be considered i 2013(See, e.g., Boyd v. Newland (9th Cir. 2006) 467 F.3d 1139, 1149 [“[Bjecause comparative juror analysis assists a court in determining whether the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference of discrimination, we believe that this analysis is called for on appeal even when the trial court ruled that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing at the first step of the Batson analysis.”]; People v. Davis (2008) 231 Ill.2d 349 [ 326 Ill.Dec. 21 , 899 N.E.2d 238, 246 ] [“We see no reason why a comparative juror analysis would not also be a relevant factor in the totality of fact | 1 | 1 |
Boyd v. Newlandgreen2 sentences2013(See, e.g., Boyd v. Newland (9th Cir. 2006) 467 F.3d 1139, 1149 [―[B]ecause comparative juror analysis assists a court in determining whether the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference of discrimination, we believe that this analysis is called for on appeal even when the trial court ruled that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing at the first step of the Batson analysis.‖]; 18 People v. Davis (Ill. 2008) 899 N.E.2d 238, 246 [―We see no reason why a comparative juror analysis would not also be a relevant factor in the totality of factors that must be considered i 2013(See, e.g., Boyd v. Newland (9th Cir. 2006) 467 F.3d 1139, 1149 [“[Bjecause comparative juror analysis assists a court in determining whether the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference of discrimination, we believe that this analysis is called for on appeal even when the trial court ruled that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing at the first step of the Batson analysis.”]; People v. Davis (2008) 231 Ill.2d 349 [ 326 Ill.Dec. 21 , 899 N.E.2d 238, 246 ] [“We see no reason why a comparative juror analysis would not also be a relevant factor in the totality of fact | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flowers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2024(Flowers v. Mississippi (2019) 588 U.S. 284 , 311–312; Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 247, fn. 6 .) But “[i]f a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination.” (Miller-El, at p. 241.) Because this case was tried before Miller-El and Lenix established the relevance of comparative juror analysis, the parties did not explore these issues in the trial court. 2024(Flowers v. Mississippi (2019) 588 U.S. 284 , 311–312; Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 247, fn. 6 .) But “[i]f a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination.” (Miller-El, at p. 241.) Because this case was tried before Miller-El and Lenix established the relevance of comparative juror analysis, the parties did not explore these issues in the trial court. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2016The first concerns the relevance of comparative juror analysis in determining whether a defendant has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ] (Wheeler). 2016The first concerns the relevance of comparative juror analysis in determining whether a defendant has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ] (Wheeler). | 2 | 2013–2016 |
People v. Sánchez
green
1 sentence2018As I have explained elsewhere, such analysis is part of what it means to consider all relevant circumstances at Batson 's first stage; no other jurisdiction has rejected the relevance of comparative juror analysis in testing a hypothesized reason for a contested strike; and our case law declining to engage in such analysis defies "a mountain of contrary authority." ( Sánchez , at p. 492, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 682 , 375 P.3d 812 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.) [collecting cases]; see Harris , at pp. 874-876, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 364 , 306 P.3d 1195 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.).) Here, at least three non-black jurors s | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Wheeler
green
2 sentences2016The first concerns the relevance of comparative juror analysis in determining whether a defendant has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ] (Wheeler). 2016The first concerns the relevance of comparative juror analysis in determining whether a defendant has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ] (Wheeler). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.