Search for: "State v. Batson."
Results 161 - 180
of 547
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2014, 2:19 pm
Some states such as California have already passed legislation extending Batson to sexual orientation, but this is the first federal court to do so. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 11:32 am
The embattled peremptory challenge got no help from the United States Supreme Court today in Rivera v. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 8:30 am
U.S. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2021, 10:36 am
California 20-808Issues: (1) Whether a court reviewing a claim under Batson v. [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 10:15 pm
The Supremes are scheduled to hear oral argument today in Rivera v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 3:44 am
” The Batson problem arises in State v. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 11:38 am
LouisianaDocket: 10-386Issue(s): Whether a court's modification of the three-step Batson v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 7:28 am
That issue was raised by the state of California in Harrington v. [read post]
8 Sep 2018, 12:07 pm
David Lundberg, No. 114,897 (Sedgwick)State v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 7:11 am
Although the trial judge concluded that Ayala had established a prima facie case for racial discrimination under Batson v. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 5:58 pm
Flowers v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 6:25 am
The leading case on the issue of raising an objection to an adverse party's use of a preemptory challenge for an improper reason is Batson v. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 6:41 am
State v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 9:08 am
Robinson v. [read post]
23 May 2022, 6:32 am
The trial court has authority to grant or deny the Batson challenge.Defendant here tried striking a series of male jurors. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 5:01 am
They overlook Young v. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 2:02 pm
2 Jul 2013, 4:20 am
This rule was decided in Batson v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 12:42 pm
Batson has already been extended to cover gender and a few states have taken it upon themselves to prohibit exercising peremptory challenges based on sexual orientation. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 12:02 pm
[Ed. note: I am counsel for the defendant in the second decision summarized here.]United States v. [read post]
