State v. McRae’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Hernandez makes it clear that the explanation provided by the prosecutor does not have to be “valid” in the sense of establishing a reasonable cause for challenge [ 500 U.S. at 362-64 ], 111 S.Ct. at 1868 , but the explanation must be race-neutral. As the Court put it: At this step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor’s explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent was inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. 2 [ 500 U.S. at 358-59 ] 111 S.Ct. at 1866 . Once the prosecutor has given a facially valid race-neutral explanation, then the trial court, considering all the relevant facts bearing on the issue, must make what the court in Hernandez characterized as an essentially factual determination of whether the defendant has proven that the prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent or purpose. [ 500 U.S. at 362-66 ] 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 . If the basis for the challenge given by the prosecutor is one that will result in the disproportionate exclusion of members of a certain race, the trial court may consider that as one of the relevant circumstances bearing on the determination whether the facially-valid reason given by the prosecutor is a pretextual explanation offered to mask a discriminatory intent. Id. As always, of course, considerable deference must be given by a reviewing court to the trial court’s finding on the issue of intent because the finding typically will turn largely on an evaluation by ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gaitan

2. “the trial court, considering all the relevant facts bearing on the issue, must make what the Court in Hernandez characterized as an essentially factual determination of whether the defendant has proven that the prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent or purpose. ⅜ * * As always, of course, considerable deference must be given by a reviewing court to the trial court’s finding on the issue of intent because the finding typically will turn largely on an evaluation by the trial court of credibility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Weatherspoon

3. “First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race. [Citation omitted]. Second, if the requisite showing has been made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question. [Citation omitted]. Finally, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. [Citation omitted].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gaitan