Citation network
Campbell Vs. Louisiana
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1998
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. 392 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Campbell V. LouisianaSearch
-
an evidentiary hearing, holding that Campbell could object to the alleged discrimination under the holding in Powers v. OhioSearch
-
a claim such as Campbell's. It also found that he was not afforded standing to raise a due process objection by Hobby v. UnitedSearch
-
process is infected with racial discrimination, doubt is cast over the fairness of all subsequent decisions. See Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
Campbell has made no effort to meet his burden of showing the issue was properly presented to those courts. See Adams v. RobertsonSearch
-
which was denied. See id., at 1-2. The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed, because, under our decision in Powers v. OhioSearch
-
to extend Powers to a claim of discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreperson. It also found Hobby v. UnitedSearch
-
however, we can ascertain standing with relative ease by applying rules established in prior cases. See Allen v. WrightSearch
-
U. S. 737, 751 (1984). Campbell's equal protection claim is such an instance. In Powers v. OhioSearch
-
was some hindrance to the excluded jurors asserting their own rights. Powers, supra, at 411 (citing Singleton v. WulffSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see also Carter v. JurySearch
-
because the grand jury is a central component of the criminal justice process. Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
see also Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
-
whether to charge a greater or lesser offense, including the important decision to charge a capital crime. See Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
He seeks to do so based on past treatment of similarly situated venirepersons in other cases, see Castaneda v. PartidaSearch
-
selection of grand jurors, and confine our holding to his standing to raise the issue. Our decision in Peters v. KiffSearch
-
permits a white defendant to challenge discrimination in grand jury selection). Our more recent decision in Hobby v. UnitedSearch
-
murder. The significance of this distinction was acknowledged by Hobby's discussion of a previous case, Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
Id., at 348. By its own terms, then, Hobby does not address a claim like Campbell's. V OneSearch
-
Adams v. RobertsonSearch
-
the rights of blacks excluded from jury service can be vindicated by letting a white murderer go free. Yet, in Powers v. OhioSearch
-
and v. andSearch
-
dissent, the defendant in Powers 1 As I have explained elsewhere, the entire line of cases following Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
excluded jurors at the expense of the traditional protections accorded criminal defendants of all races. See Georgia v. M cSearch
-
of recurrence. Id., at 414-415. These obstacles, though perhaps often present in the context of Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
because all of those cases involved defendants' assertions of their own rights. See, e. g., Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
Syllabus Campbell V. LouisianaSearch
-
Hobby v. UnitedSearch
-
See Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
See Adams v. RobertsonSearch
-
See Allen v. WrightSearch
-
In Powers v. OhioSearch
-
Carter v. JurySearch
-
Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
Campbell's. v. OneSearch
-
Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
See Georgia v. M cSearch
-
of Batson v. KentuckySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial