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 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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. Slappygreen2 sentences2002In Slappy , the supreme court provided a nonexclusive list of five factors, the presence of any of which will tend to show that the proffered reason is a pretext: *1084 (1) alleged group bias not shown to be shared by the juror in question, (2) failure to examine the juror or perfunctory examination, assuming neither the trial court nor opposing counsel had questioned the juror, (3) singling the juror out for special questioning designed to evoke a certain response, (4) the prosecutor's reason is unrelated to the facts of the case, and (5) a challenge based on reasons equally applicable to jur 1999In Overstreet v. State, 712 So.2d 1174, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the third district observed that in State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla.1988): the supreme court adopted a nonexclusive list of five factors to guide the trial bench in its evaluation of whether a proffered reason for a strike is in fact an impermissible pretext: (1) alleged group bias not shown to be shared by the juror in question; (2) failure to examine the juror or perfunctory examination, assuming neither the trial court nor opposing counsel had questioned the juror, *1130 (3) singling the juror out for special questionin | 2 | 3 |
Overstreet v. Stategreen1 sentence1999In Overstreet v. State, 712 So.2d 1174, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the third district observed that in State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla.1988): the supreme court adopted a nonexclusive list of five factors to guide the trial bench in its evaluation of whether a proffered reason for a strike is in fact an impermissible pretext: (1) alleged group bias not shown to be shared by the juror in question; (2) failure to examine the juror or perfunctory examination, assuming neither the trial court nor opposing counsel had questioned the juror, *1130 (3) singling the juror out for special questionin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Spiver Whitney Gordon
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Melbourne v. State
green
1 sentence1999Although the procedure for examining peremptory challenges was refined in Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996), Melbourne did not recede from the factors adopted in Slappy , or the holding that: "The presence of one or more of these factors will tend to show that the proffered reason is an impermissible pretext." Slappy, 522 So.2d at 22 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Slappy v. State
green
1 sentence1988These requirements lie at the heart of the nonexclusive list of five factors the Slappy court concluded would weigh against the legitimacy of a race-neutral explanation. 503 So.2d at 355 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.