723 So. 2d 939 - State v. Tyler’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably 950 So. 2d 583 - State v. Draughn (2007), 758 So. 2d 749 - State v. Castleberry (1999)
45 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Powers v. Ohio
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the Batson analysis, as applicable also to peremptory challenges by the defense under [ Georgia v. ] McCollum[ 505 U.S. 42 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992)] and [ State v. ] Knox[ 609 So.2d 803 (La.1992)], the ultimate burden of persuasion remains on the party objecting to the challenge to prove purposeful discrimination. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam); Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 , [97- 0338 La. 4 ] 359, 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). The trial judge ultimately determines whether the proffered race-neutral reason is plausible, persuasive or substantiated by the record. State v. Green , 94-0887, p. 9; 655 So.2d 272, 289 (La.1995). "[T]he proper inquiry in the final stage of the Batson analysis is not whether the [challenger] has disproved the existence of purposeful discrimination suggested by the [opponent's] prima facie case; rather, the question is whether the [opponent's] proof, when weighed against the [challenger's] proffered `race-neutral' reasons, is strong enough to persuade the trier-of-fact that such discriminatory intent is present." Green at 29 ; 655 So.2d at 290 . The ultimate focus of the Batson inquiry is on the challenger's intent at the time of the strike. Green at p. 2 ; 655 So.2d at 287 . The trial court should examine all of the evidence available. Patterns of strikes and other statements or actions by the challenger during the voir dire may support a finding of ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that which is offered to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence by the adverse party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jackson indicates that these evidentiary limitations are not applicable to the state's case in rebuttal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.