Citation network
Batson Vs. Kentucky
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 30, 1986
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 79 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
U.S. 79 (1986) Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
Affirming the conviction, the Kentucky Supreme Court observed that recently, in another case, it had relied on Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
The principle announced in Strauder v. WestSearch
-
a) A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. Strauder v. WestSearch
-
to consider the State's case against a black defendant. Pp. 476 U. S. 88 -89. 2. The portion of Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to reexamine that portion of Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
among other claims, the argument concerning the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. Conceding that Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
on the prosecutor's conduct in this case, petitioner urged the court to follow decisions of other States, People v. WheelerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Commonwealth v. SoaresSearch
-
Kentucky affirmed. In a single paragraph, the court declined petitioner's invitation to adopt the reasoning of People v. WheelerSearch
-
supra, and Commonwealth v. SoaresSearch
-
of a fair cross-section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the venire. See Commonwealth v. McFerronSearch
-
S.W.2d 924 (1984). We granted certiorari, 471 U.S. 1052 (1985), and now reverse. II In Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
laws when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded. Strauder v. WestSearch
-
of the demand of equal protection. Akins v. TexasSearch
-
Page 476 U. S. 86 tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria. Martin v. TexasSearch
-
or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors, see Norris v. AlabamaSearch
-
Carter v. JurySearch
-
by safeguarding a person accused of crime against the arbitrary exercise of power by prosecutor or judge. Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
assessment of individual qualifications and ability impartially to consider evidence presented at a trial. See Thiel v. SouthernSearch
-
exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. See Ballard v. UnitedSearch
-
McCray v. NewSearch
-
Hernandez v. TexasSearch
-
jury. Since the Fourteenth Amendment protects an accused throughout the proceedings bringing him to justice, Hill v. TexasSearch
-
McCray v. NewSearch
-
Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
of the case to be tried, United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
F.Supp. 467, 473 (Conn.1976), mandamus granted sub nom. United States v. NewmanSearch
-
was whether the defendant had met his burden of proving purposeful discrimination on the part of the State. Whitus v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Martin v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 316 (1906). That question also was at the heart of the portion of Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
the Constitution does not confer a right to peremptory challenges, id. at 380 U. S. 219 (citing Stilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
U.S. at 385 U. S. 550 (citing Tarrance v. FloridaSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Circumstantial evidence of invidious intent may include proof of disproportionate impact. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
id. at 426 U. S. 241 (quoting Akins v. TexasSearch
-
by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
makes the requisite showing, the burden shifts to the State to explain adequately the racial exclusion. Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
that its officials did not discriminate, or that they properly performed their official duties. See Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
Jones v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
Swain v. AlabamaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial