Sorto v. Herbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 1 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Batson Court ... established] a three-step burden-shifting framework for the evidentiary inquiry into whether a peremptory challenge is race-based, [476 U.S.] at 96-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712 : First, the moving party — i.e., the party challenging the other party’s attempted peremptory strike — must make a prima facie case that the nonmoving party’s peremptory is based on race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ; Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). Second, the nonmoving party must assert a race-neutral reason for the peremptory challenge. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ; Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 358-59 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 . The nonmoving party’s burden at step two is very low. Under Burkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam), although a race-neutral reason must be given, it need not be persuasive or even plausible. Id. at 768 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 . Finally, the court must determine whether the moving party carried the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the peremptory challenge at issue was based on race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ; Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rosario v. Ercole

2. “[T]he trial judge never confronted, and the trial record does not reveal, what the statistics would have shown at the conclusion of jury selection. If those statistics sufficiently established the inference that challenges were based on race, the court could then have implemented the Batson process to ensure that impermissible challenges would not be allowed. If, on the other hand, the statistics at the conclusion failed to support a sufficient inference, there would be no need to engage in the process. We cannot say, on this record, that the trial judge’s refusal to implement Bat-son’s process for testing each questioned challenge midway in the process was an unreasonable application of the Batson requirements.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rosario v. Ercole

3. “would likely include evidence such as the composition of the venire, the adversary’s use of peremptory challenges, the race of the potential jurors stricken, and a clear indication as to which strikes were challenged when and on what ground, and which strikes were cited to the trial court as evidence of a discriminatory intent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Alexander