Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Miller-el Vs. Cockrell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 25, 2003

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

73 entries 6 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. Vasquez Vs. Hillery US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1986
  2. Hernandez Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · May 03, 1954
  3. Slack Vs. Mcdaniel US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2000
  4. Purkett Vs. Elem US Supreme Court · May 15, 1995
  5. Barefoot Vs. Estelle US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1983
  6. Patton Vs. Yount US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1984
  7. U.S. 322 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Miller-El V. Cockrell
    Search
  8. no evidence indicating a systematic exclusion of blacks, as was required by the then-controlling precedent, Swain v. Alabama
    Search
  9. petitioner guilty, and he was sentenced to death. While his appeal was pending, this Court established, in Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  10. under the standard set forth in Slack v. McDaniel
    Search
  11. at step three is the persuasiveness of the prosecutor's justification for his peremptory strike. E. g., Purkett v. Elem
    Search
  12. that is accorded significant deference and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Hernandez v. New
    Search
  13. the neutral explanation of the prosecution, the peremptory strikes in the final analysis were race based. Cf. Reeves v. Sanderson
    Search
  14. must be vacated because the jury selection procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause and our holding in Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  15. court of appeals should limit its examination to a threshold inquiry into the underlying merit of his claims. Slack v. McDaniel
    Search
  16. the use of peremptory challenges. Petitioner's trial occurred before our decision in Batson, supra, and Swain v. Alabama
    Search
  17. to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. While the appeal was pending, on April 30, 1986, the Court decided Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  18. discrimination, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case for new findings in light of Batson. Miller-El v. State
    Search
  19. evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied petitioner's appeal, and we denied certiorari. Miller-El v. Texas
    Search
  20. Miller-El v. Johnson
    Search
  21. c)(2)). Citing our decision in Slack v. McDaniel
    Search
  22. as a justification for striking a potential 332 juror for cause or by peremptory challenge. Wainwright v. Witt
    Search
  23. Under Texas law at the time of petitioner's trial, an unwillingness to do so warranted removal for cause. Huffman v. State
    Search
  24. Hohn v. United
    Search
  25. In Slack, supra, at 483, we recognized that Congress codified our standard, announced in Barefoot v. Estelle
    Search
  26. than fewer, restrictions on the power of federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. Duncan v. Walker
    Search
  27. quoting Williams v. Taylor
    Search
  28. Williams v. Taylor
    Search
  29. of the three-step framework mandated by Batson and reaffirmed in our later precedents. E. g., Purkett v. Elem
    Search
  30. Hernandez v. New
    Search
  31. Hernandez, supra, at 359. As we confirmed in Purkett v. Elem
    Search
  32. and by whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy. In Hernandez v. New
    Search
  33. s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies 'peculiarly within a trial judge's province.' Wainwright v. Witt
    Search
  34. U. S. 412 , 428 (1985), citing Patton v. Yount
    Search
  35. saying that this includes the facts and circumstances that were adduced in support of the prima facie case. Cf. Reeves v. Sanderson
    Search
  36. only twelve and a half percent of African-Americans. No explanation is proffered for the statistical disparity. Pierre v. Louisiana
    Search
  37. quoting Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  38. questioning on mandatory minimums was employed by one of the same prosecutors who tried the instant case. Chambers v. State
    Search
  39. quoting Hill v. Texas
    Search
  40. s side of the casewhich, though inadequate (as the Court holds) to make the absence of a claimed violation of Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  41. analyzing whether the applicant had made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See, e. g., Kasi v. Angelone
    Search
  42. Wheat v. Johnson
    Search
  43. from imposing additional requirements, and one such additional requirement has been approved by this Court. See Slack v. McDaniel
    Search
  44. c)(1)(A). See, e. g., Bates v. Lee
    Search
  45. By asserting race-neutral reasons for the challenges, the State satisfied step two of Batson. See Purkett v. Elem
    Search
  46. This finding established that petitioner had failed to carry his burden at step three of the inquiry set out in Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  47. erroneous. Ante, at 341. The Court's main justification for this conclusion is supposed fidelity to Slack v. McDaniel
    Search
  48. Weaver v. Bowersox
    Search
  49. Putman v. Head
    Search
  50. Johnson v. Gibson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial