Racial Prejudice

82 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Juvon D. Pickett v. State
  922 So. 2d 987· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-10-12 ·cited 6×
  Juvon Pickett appealed his conviction for first-degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse, challenging the admissibility of his statements and confession obtained during custodial interrogation, and alleging improper peremptory strikes of prospective jurors. The court affir
• Swink v. City OF Pagedale
  810 F.2d 791· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a default judgment, limiting voir dire, or directing a verdict for the city, and that any error in jury instructions was harmless.
• United States v. Bowles
  574 F.2d 970· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's refusal to question prospective jurors about racial prejudice, when the defendant was Black, denied the defendant a fair trial.
• Mr. Tyrone X. Savage v. United States
  547 F.2d 212· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order denying the motion to vacate sentence should be affirmed, as modified, because the petitioner failed to establish a violation of his jury rights and did not properly preserve the issue of racial prejudice inquiry during voir dire.
• LEE v. Beto
  429 F.2d 524· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the fundamental fairness of the petitioner's trial, including evidence of witness intimidation and racial prejudice.
• Davis v. State
  670 So. 2d 1036· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-03-08 ·cited 5×
  Carl Davis appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to sever drug charges from codefendants and to disqualify the judge. The appellate court affirmed both denials but remanded for resentencing correction where consecutive sentences were improperly imposed on some counts.
• Powell v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  634 So. 2d 787· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The Powells, Black plaintiffs who won a jury verdict, appealed after learning that white jurors made racial jokes and insensitive statements during deliberations. The court affirmed the trial judge's refusal to conduct post-trial juror interviews, holding that Florida law prohibi
• Soap v. Carter
  632 F.2d 872· 10th Cir.· 1980-10-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially prejudicial remarks in closing argument, which appealed to stereotypes and created a probability of jury impairment, violated the petitioner's due process rights.
• Johnson v. Rose
  546 F.2d 678· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's injection of irrelevant and inflammatory questions regarding a defendant's relationship with a white woman tainted the trial, denying due process.
• Dukes v. Waitkevitch
  536 F.2d 469· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the circumstances of this case did not constitutionally require the trial judge to question prospective jurors on racial prejudice.
• United States v. Ross
  477 F.2d 551· 6th Cir.· 1973-04-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the sufficiency of evidence issue was waived by failure to move for acquittal, and the voir dire issue could not be reviewed due to lack of a record.
• The United States v. Ulton Jerome Rivers
  468 F.2d 1355· 4th Cir.· 1972-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the trial judge should have asked the requested voir dire questions regarding racial prejudice, the failure to do so constituted harmless error under the facts of this case.
• Renetha C. Wyche v. State
  619 So. 2d 231· Fla.· 1993-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Tampa's loitering ordinance targeting persons suspected of prostitution is unconstitutional on its face because it is overbroad, vague, violates substantive due process, and imposes penalties exceeding those in comparable state statutes. The Co
• Hale v. State
  480 So. 2d 115· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-11-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prosecutor's stated trial strategy of excluding black male jurors to avoid confusing a young black eyewitness witness is an impermissible basis for a peremptory challenge.
• Sanders v. Fair
  728 F.2d 557· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 2×
  A state court's decision to apply a new rule of state law prospectively, rather than retroactively, does not violate the federal Constitution, even if the new rule would have benefited the defendant in his prior trial.
• United States v. Floyd
  535 F.2d 1299· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court denied a suggestion for rehearing en banc, with dissenting judges arguing for rehearing to address the panel's misinterpretation of precedent regarding voir dire examination for racial prejudice.
• Featherston v. United States
  491 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's voir dire questions regarding racial prejudice were sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements, distinguishing the case from Ham v. South Carolina.
• Paisley Nickelson v. Davis
  315 F.2d 782· 4th Cir.· 1963-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to question prospective jurors about racial prejudice when all parties were of the same race. It also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a peremptory instruction on the defendant's negligence.
• BAY Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Bryan
  679 So. 2d 1246· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-09-11 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Commission on Human Relations reversed a hearing officer's finding that Bay County School Board did not discriminate against four Black teachers in their performance evaluations, but the district court reversed the Commission's decision because it improperly reweighed
• Jacobs v. Barr
  959 F.2d 313· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-27
  The court held that Arthur Jacobs had standing to challenge the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 but that his equal protection claim failed on the merits because Congress's distinction between Japanese and German American internment was supported by historical evidence and survived st
• Johnson v. State OF Md.
  915 F.2d 892· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-01
  The dissenting judge believes a new trial was warranted due to insufficient inquiry into potential racial prejudice among jurors.
• Hubbard v. Brown
  262 So. 2d 267· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-05-19
  Trial court's grant of new trial in negligence action based on finding that racial prejudice influenced jury verdict was not an abuse of discretion and is affirmed.
• LEE v. Beto
  446 F.2d 1004· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-14
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.