Jordan v. Lefevre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... When counsel objected that “the record is not complete” the judge [in Jordan ] replied “do it very succinctly, because I’m not going to be spending more time in here listening to you.” ... ‡ $ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ... [T]he Batson analysis recognizes that a race neutral reason may be rational and yet be a pretext for discrimination. See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 363 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 [at 1868]. Jordan now declares that the district court’s conclusory statement that the prosecutor’s explanations were race neutral did not satisfy Batson’s third step. We agree.... $ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ The state trial judge presiding at Jordan’s trial was not in a position to make the requisite determination as to discriminatory intent. In an effort to save “an awful lot of time” he ruled summarily on the Batson application after an extremely brief colloquy, and resisted counsel’s efforts to make arguments regarding the peremptory strikes so as to create a full record.... This cursory treatment of Jordan’s Batson application was not a meaningful inquiry .... ... [T]he limited record developed in the present case casts doubt on the trial court’s ability to make the required finding regarding the prosecutor’s intent, thereby undermining the deference due its conclusion.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 340 F. Supp. 2d 245 - Reyes v. Greiner · 249 F. Supp. 2d 241 - Dobbin v. Greiner

2. “... we recently emphasized a trial court’s duty at the third stage to determine the credibility of the proffered explanations. See Barnes v. Anderson, 202 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.1999). There we held it was error for the trial court to deny a Batson motion without explicitly adjudicating the credibility of the ... race neutral explanations ....”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 101 Cal. App. 4th 263 - People v. Allen · 249 F. Supp. 2d 241 - Dobbin v. Greiner

3. “[A]ttaching an appellate brief without explicitly alerting the [New York Court of Appeals] to each claim raised does not fairly present such claims for purposes of the exhaustion requirement underlying federal habeas jurisdiction.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 258 F. Supp. 2d 105 - Copeland v. Walker · Ramirez v. Attorney General of New York