803 So. 2d 933 - State v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 53 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under Batson , a defendant objecting to a peremptory challenge must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing facts and relevant circumstances which raise an inference that the prosecutor used the challenges to exclude potential jurors on account of race. The burden of production then shifts to the prosecutor to come forward with a race-neutral explanation for the challenges. The explanation need not be persuasive, or even plausible, and unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered may be deemed race-neutral. The trial court then must decide whether the defendant has proved purposeful racial discrimination. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains on the defendant to prove purposeful discrimination.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 811 So. 2d 1222 - State v. Zeno · 953 So. 2d 91 - State v. Williams

2. “The defendant may offer any facts relevant to the question of the prosecutor's discriminatory intent to satisfy this burden. Such facts include, but are not limited to, a pattern of strikes by a prosecutor against members of a suspect class, statements or actions of the prosecutor [during voir dire] which support an inference that the exercise of peremptory strikes was motivated by impermissible considerations, the composition of the venire and of the jury finally empaneled, and any other disparate impact upon the suspect class which is alleged to be the victim of purposeful discrimination. See State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Thompson, 516 So.2d 349 (La.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871 , 109 S.Ct. 180 , 102 L.Ed.2d 149 (1988).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 802 So. 2d 533 - State v. Duncan · 121 So. 3d 1207 - State v. Davis

3. “A trial judge may ... effectively collapse the first two stages of the Batson procedure, whether or not the defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, and may then perform the critical third step of weighing the defendant's proof and the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons to determine discriminatory intent." State v. Jacobs , 99-0991, p. 8 (La. 5/15/01), 803 So.2d 933 , 941 [, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1087 , 122 S.Ct. 826 , 151 L.Ed.2d 707 (2002) ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Thomas · 811 So. 2d 1222 - State v. Zeno