Batson V. Kentucky

288 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. De Gross
  913 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Fifth Amendment limits a federal criminal defendant's peremptory challenges, prohibiting gender-based strikes, and that the government has standing to object to such discriminatory challenges.
• United States v. Horacio Alvarado
  891 F.2d 439· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-07 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that even if a prima facie case of discriminatory peremptory challenges was not properly determined below, the absence of significant underrepresentation of minority groups on the final jury obviates the need to vacate the conviction.
• United States v. Anthony Temple
  890 F.2d 1043· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possession with intent to distribute, and that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in jury selection under Batson.
• United States v. Davis
  871 F.2d 71· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the government articulated racially neutral reasons for its peremptory challenges was not clearly erroneous.
• Smith v. Fairman
  862 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of the victim's prior inconsistent statement was constitutional error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
• United States v. Mathews
  803 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant must admit all elements of a crime, including intent, to claim entrapment, and that the trial court did not err in jury selection or in denying a mistrial based on the prosecution's use of peremptory strikes.
• United States v. Horacio Alvarado
  923 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a prima facie case of discrimination may be established by a challenge rate significantly higher than the minority percentage of the venire, and that the adequacy of prosecutor's explanations requires further findings on remand.
• Hill v. Dugger
  556 So. 2d 1385· Fla.· 1990-01-26 ·cited 15×
  Clarence Hill appeals denial of post-conviction relief and petitions for habeas corpus in a capital murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial of the motion for post-conviction relief and denies habeas corpus relief, vacating a temporary stay of execu
• United States v. Rondell Herbert Garrison
  849 F.2d 103· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court's findings regarding race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes were not clearly erroneous, and the ex parte review of the prosecutor's notes did not warrant reversal.
• Frances v. State
  143 So. 3d 340· Fla.· 2014-04-17 ·cited 14×
  David Sylvester Frances appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and petition for habeas corpus in a death penalty case involving the murders of two women. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of all ineffective assistance of counsel clai
• Stroud v. State
  656 So. 2d 195· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-05-12 ·cited 14×
  Bobby Wayne Stroud challenges his conviction for criminal mischief, contending the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a black prospective juror in violation of Batson standards. The appellate court agrees that the prosecutor failed to provide
• Barfield v. Orange Cnty.
  911 F.2d 644· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the Batson challenge based on the explanations provided for striking the jurors, nor in admitting the EEOC and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission reports into evidence.
• Tukes v. Dugger
  911 F.2d 508· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 14×
  The court concurs in the result but disagrees with the reasoning that Stone v. Powell does not apply when state appellate courts do not issue opinions.
• United States v. Dobynes
  905 F.2d 1192· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting other crimes evidence, physical evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the Batson claim was untimely and not plain error. The refusal to depart from sentencing guidelines was also affirmed.
• United States v. Alcantar
  897 F.2d 436· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a delayed adversarial hearing was inadequate to allow the defense to challenge the prosecutor's reasons for striking potential jurors, thus violating Batson.
• Mayo v. Lynaugh
  893 F.2d 683· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the state waived its procedural default defense by failing to raise it in the district court, and that the jury instructions in the sentencing phase prevented the jury from giving full effect to the defendant's mitigating evidence.
• United States v. Nicholson
  885 F.2d 481· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the government did not exercise its peremptory challenges in a purposefully discriminatory manner was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Wilson
  884 F.2d 1121· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-13 ·cited 14×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated in this dissenting opinion, but it implies disagreement with the majority's procedural requirements for Batson hearings.
• United States v. Wilson
  867 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the government did not exercise peremptory challenges in a purposefully discriminatory manner.
• United States v. Townsley
  856 F.2d 1189· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 14×
  White defendants tried jointly with a black co-defendant have standing to challenge the prosecution's use of peremptory strikes to exclude black jurors under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
• Wilson v. Cross
  845 F.2d 163· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a plaintiff must prove individualized intent to discriminate to prevail in a § 1983 claim, and that Batson v. Kentucky does not establish a prima facie case when the plaintiff is not of the same race as the excluded jurors.
• United States v. Nicholson
  815 F.2d 61· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the case must be remanded for a hearing on the defendant's challenge to the jury selection process due to potential Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The court also held that the admission of audio tapes, documents, and conversations was not an abuse
• Davis v. Lansing
  851 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of great and immediate irreparable harm or prosecutorial bad faith.
• Reeves v. State
  632 So. 2d 702· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-03-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state's race-neutral reason for striking prospective jurors was pretextual because the jurors were not questioned to establish the alleged bias.
• Euriell Laidler v. State
  627 So. 2d 1263· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-12-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the logic of Batson and Neil applies to the intentional exclusion of women from jury selection, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Broussard
  987 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Batson v. Kentucky does not extend to gender-based peremptory challenges, but even if it did, the trial court misapplied the doctrine by requiring more than gender-neutral reasons. The denial or impairment of peremptory challenges is reversible error without a
• Wiley v. Puckett
  969 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court's prior affirmation of the death sentence, based on a vague aggravating circumstance without proper reweighing or harmless error analysis, violated the Eighth Amendment. The court vacated the district court's judgment and directed
• United States v. Hughes
  970 F.2d 227· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, evidentiary rulings, or expert testimony.
• United States v. de Gross
  960 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 12×
  A criminal defendant is not a state actor when exercising peremptory challenges, and therefore the government cannot raise a Batson objection to such challenges.
• Sterling Horne v. Trickey
  895 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appellate counsel's decision not to raise a jury discrimination claim based on the prevailing law at the time was reasonable, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal argument did not impermissibly comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
• Riddick v. Edmiston
  894 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are sufficient to inform a defendant of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel after indictment, and that a prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge, found credible by the trial court, satisfies Batson requirements.
• United States v. Cyril Melton
  883 F.2d 336· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the kidnapping conviction and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or Batson challenge determination.
• United States v. Hughes
  880 F.2d 101· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky, requiring a remand for the government to provide neutral explanations for its peremptory challenges.
• United States v. Chinchilla
  874 F.2d 695· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's use of peremptory challenges to strike the only Hispanic jurors established a prima facie case of discrimination, and the prosecutor's explanations were insufficient to rebut this inference.
• United States v. Rodriquez-Cardenas
  866 F.2d 390· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that non-black defendants lack standing to raise a Batson challenge regarding the exclusion of black jurors, and that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement does not apply to petit juries. The court also affirmed the admission of two tape-recorded con
• Thaddeus Donald Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc.
  860 F.2d 1308· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-05 ·cited 12×
• United States v. Rodrequez
  859 F.2d 1321· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's use of peremptory strikes was not discriminatory, joinder was proper, photographic identifications were not unduly suggestive, informant identities were not required to be disclosed, and other trial rulings were not abuses of discretion.
• United States v. Wilson
  853 F.2d 606· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Government's explanations for striking all black potential jurors were not neutral and were pretextual, violating Batson v. Kentucky.
• United States v. Battle
  859 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that any error in admitting certain testimony was harmless.
• United States v. Alcantar
  832 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant has a constitutional right to rebut the prosecution's neutral explanation for excluding jurors of the defendant's race, and that the trial court's ex parte proceeding violated this right.
• Procter v. Butler
  831 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner waived his Sandstrom claim due to failure to object at trial, Batson is not retroactive on collateral review, ineffective assistance of counsel was not demonstrated, joinder of charges was not prejudicial, and evidence was sufficient for convict
• Boles v. Foltz
  816 F.2d 1132· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-24 ·cited 12×
  A request for counsel at arraignment invokes the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, and subsequent police-initiated interrogation on unrelated offenses violates the rule established in Edwards v. Arizona.
• United States v. Wilson
  815 F.2d 52· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that its prior decision affirming the conviction must be vacated due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Griffith v. Kentucky, which mandates Batson v. Kentucky apply to cases not yet final on direct appeal.
• United States v. Asa Minor
  815 F.2d 472· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that its prior decision affirming the conviction could not stand in light of a new Supreme Court ruling on the retroactive application of Batson v. Kentucky.
• Bowden v. Kemp
  793 F.2d 273· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner abused the writ by failing to raise his discriminatory jury selection claim in prior habeas petitions.
• United States v. Grandison
  780 F.2d 425· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of photographs, restrictions on a self-represented defendant's movements, the government's use of peremptory challenges, the admission of grand jury testimony, the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and the e
• State v. Whitby
  975 So. 2d 1124· Fla.· 2008-02-07 ·cited 11×
• United States v. Rudas
  905 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Batson claim by failing to respond to the government's explanations for its peremptory challenges, and even if not waived, the explanations were sufficient and race-neutral.
• Jones v. J.O. Davis
  835 F.2d 835· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of black jurors under the Swain standard, warranting an evidentiary hearing.
• Blair v. Armontrout
  976 F.2d 1130· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's systematic use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, coupled with appeals to racial prejudice in closing arguments, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial and entitled him to a new trial.