Citation network
Georgia Vs. Mccollum
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 18, 1992
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. 42 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Georgia V. MccollumSearch
-
peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, distinguishing Edmonson v. LeesvilleSearch
-
peremptory challenges offends the Equal Protection Clause when the offending challenges are made by the State, Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
state action for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause under the analytical framework summarized in Lugar v. EdmondsonSearch
-
that racial discrimination by the State in jury selection offends the Equal Protection Clause. See, e. g., Strauder v. WestSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in a civil litigant's exercise of peremptory challenges also violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Edmonson v. LeesvilleSearch
-
respondents therefore would be able to remove all the African-American potential jurors.2 Relying on Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
vote, affirmed the trial court's ruling. 261 Ga. 473, 405 S. E. 2d 688 (1991). The court acknowledged that in Edmonson v. LeesvilleSearch
-
unbroken chain of decisions, this Court gradually has abolished race as a consideration for jury service. In Strauder v. WestSearch
-
does have the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected by nondiscriminatory criteria. See also Neal v. DelawareSearch
-
that criminal defendants may not exercise peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. See United States v. GreerSearch
-
from jury venire on false assumption that they, as a group, are not qualified to serve as jurors). In Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
the use of peremptories over a period of time might establish such a violation. Id., at 224-228. In Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
Id., at 97.4 Last Term this Court applied the Batson framework in two other contexts. In Powers v. OhioSearch
-
also from any prejudice against his prosecution. Between him and the state the scales are to be evenly held.' Hayes v. MissouriSearch
-
Id., at 107 (concurring opinion). 48 on the basis of race. In Edmonson v. LeesvilleSearch
-
State v. AlvaradoSearch
-
in all contexts, violates the Constitution only when it is attributable to state action. See Moose Lodge No. 107 v. IrvisSearch
-
greater license to violate the equal protection rights of prospective jurors than have prosecutors. See, e. g., State v. LevinsonSearch
-
People v. KernSearch
-
State v. NeilSearch
-
Commonwealth v. SoaresSearch
-
People v. WheelerSearch
-
P. 2d 748 (1978). 51 Court in Edmonson used the analytical framework summarized in Lugar v. EdmondsonSearch
-
of a jury in a criminal case fulfills a unique and constitutionally compelled governmental function. Compare Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
making Sixth Amendment applicable to States through Fourteenth Amendment), with Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
-
U. S. 211 (1916) (States do not have a constitutional obligation to provide a jury trial in civil cases). Cf. West v. AtkinsSearch
-
State cannot avoid its constitutional responsibilities by delegating a public function to private parties. Cf. Terry v. AdamsSearch
-
and the prosecution negates the governmental character of the peremptory challenge. Respondents rely on Polk County v. DodsonSearch
-
for a particular purpose depends on the nature and context of the function he is performing. For example, in Branti v. FinkelSearch
-
party's exercise of peremptory challenges consti- two inquiries are the same, see, e. g., Rendell-Baker v. KohnSearch
-
U. S. 830 , 838 (1982), and has specifically extended Polk County's reasoning to stateaction cases, see Blum v. YaretskySearch
-
Evolution of the Court's Treatment and Implications for Georgia v. McCollumSearch
-
Peremptory Challeges after Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
Peremptory Challenges after Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
withheld altogether without impairing the constitutional guarantee of an impartial jury and a fair trial. See Frazier v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WoodSearch
-
Stilson v. UnitedSearch
-
confidential communications or reveal trial strategy, an in camera discussion can be arranged. See United States v. ZolinSearch
-
U. S. 474 , 483 (1990). See also Hayes v. MissouriSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial