Citation network
Powers Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 01, 1991
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. 400 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Powers v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. 400 (1991) Powers v. OhioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
challenges to remove seven black venirepersons from the jury. Powers' objections, which were based on Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
S. 401 peremptory challenges are permissible when visited upon members of all races in equal degree, see Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
third-party equal protection claims of jurors excluded by the prosecution because of their race. Cf., e.g., Singleton v. WulffSearch
-
of the statute, as well as the broader constitutional imperative of race-neutrality in jury selection. See Strauder v. WestSearch
-
the prosecution challenged a black prospective juror, Powers renewed his objections, citing our decision in Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims. While the petition for certiorari was pending, we decided Holland v. IllinoisSearch
-
or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors, see Norris v. AlabamaSearch
-
the use of peremptory challenges as a device to exclude jurors because of their race for the first time in Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
We returned to the problem of a prosecutor's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
only one of which was to protect individual defendants from discrimination in the selection of jurors. Allen v. HardySearch
-
U. S. 255 , 478 U. S. 259 (1986) (per curiam) (quoting Brown v. LouisianaSearch
-
of justice has long been recognized as one of the principal justifications for retaining the jury system. See Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 145 , 391 U. S. 147 -158 (1968). In Balzac v. PortoSearch
-
as it guards the rights of the parties and insures continued acceptance of the laws by all of the people. See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
in the democratic process. While States may prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors, see Carter v. JurySearch
-
Thiel v. SouthernSearch
-
In Peters v. KiffSearch
-
Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at 476 U. S. 88 (quoting Avery v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at 476 U. S. 87 (quoting Thiel v. SouthernSearch
-
survive when visited upon all persons is no more authoritative today than the case which advanced the theorem, Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
racial classifications do not become legitimate on the assumption that all persons suffer them in equal degree. Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
cannot rest a claim to relief premised on the legal rights or interests of third parties. United States Dept. of Labor v. TriplettSearch
-
the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests. Id. at 428 U. S. 115 -116. See also Craig v. BorenSearch
-
criminal defendants to challenge their convictions by raising the rights of third parties. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
McGowan v. MarylandSearch
-
in order to prevent possible future prosecution. See, e.g., Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
criminal defendant cognizable injury, and the defendant has a concrete interest in challenging the practice. See Allen v. HardySearch
-
may enforce a defendant's right to be tried by a jury free from ethnic, racial, or political prejudice, Rosales-Lopez v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 499 U. S. 412 Ham v. SouthSearch
-
Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 339 U. S. 162 (1950), or predisposition about the defendant's culpability, Irvin v. DowdSearch
-
Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
seeks to object to the introduction of evidence obtained illegally from a third party, see, e.g., United States v. PaynerSearch
-
if not closer than, those we have recognized to convey third-party standing in our prior cases. See, e.g., Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
juror to show a likelihood that discrimination against him at the voir dire stage will recur. See Los Angeles v. LyonsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial