512:
flawed tool" but
California courts were hesitant to rule contrary. This has left open the question of how the Court would rule if non-Latinos who spoke Spanish were allowed to remain in a jury while Spanish speaking Latinos were struck because of their language ability. Professor Mirandé notes that Latinos across the board are hurt, monolingual Spanish speakers are barred because they lack English while bilingual jurors are struck because they know too much Spanish. He continues that instead bilingual Spanish speakers should be wanted by the court to play an important check on court translations. Another commentator has argued the courts should embrace more bilingualism because of the benefits it provides to the legal system as the Hernandez dissent discussed.
415:, and the Court assumed that the trial judge took into account the case-specific factors in making the decision to accept the prosecutor's justification: the high concentration of Spanish speakers in the local population, Spanish as the predominant language for many in that region, the ethnic backgrounds of the parties and witnesses, and the prosecutor's swift justification. This level of deference was based on a trial judge's ability to decide credibility questions that cannot be reviewed solely through the record on the appeal. The plurality did not find any reason that the trial judge's decision presented a clear error and was a permissible view under the evidence.
31:
288:, the prosecutor unconstitutionally used peremptory strikes against jury panel members who had Hispanic last names. On appeal, the court found that because the prosecutor had only challenged the three potential jurors with Hispanic surnames. However, the appellate court found the prosecutor has a nondiscriminatory reason for the challenge because the stricken jurors either had a relative prosecuted by the district attorney's office or spoke Spanish and may not accept the translated testimony as final.
1090:
450:, O'Connor limited the Equal Protection Clause analysis for racial discrimination to race only. "No matter how closely tied or significantly correlated to race . . . does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause unless it is based on race." O'Connor reasoned that if a trial judge accepted a prosecutor's nonracial explanation, then there was nothing more for an appeals court to decide on a
511:
The
Supreme Court has not revisited the question of potential discrimination towards bilingual or multilingual jurors since which has created confusion for lower courts. An examination of twenty years after Hernandez v. New York in California courts found the case's reasoning to be "an arbitrary and
371:
violation to discriminate on language. Hernandez believed that every bilingual juror would express the same hesitance that the striked jurors in his case would because of their language ability. The Court was concerned with line drawing issues of potential multiple dialects or languages for a given
483:
protections of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Further, Stevens found that the prosecutor's justification would disproportionately affect Spanish-speaking jurors, alternatives were available to address the prosecutor's concerns, and his reasoning should be viewed skeptically because he did not use a for
407:
The Court side-stepped
Hernandez's argument on the correlation between Spanish-speaking ability and ethnicity because of the additional factors the prosecutor articulated in his reasoning for striking the two Latino jurors. Kennedy argued that even assuming all bilingual speakers would hesitate it
307:
as it was a "legitimate neutral ground" for the prosecutor to be concerned of the
Spanish-speaking jurors fidelity to a translate court record. The majority noted that the trial judge was present during the entirety of the questioning and was satisfied with the prosecutor's actions as the stricken
375:
New York argued that
Hernandez's position was against Supreme Court jurisprudence for three main reasons: it uses the juror's answer as proof of a prosecutor's intent to discriminate, it prevents individualized assessment of jurors in favor of group stereotypes, and it would create no ability for
543:
acknowledged the close connection between language and race noting
Kennedy remarked how language can lead to discrimination. However, it found language did not meet the same "heightened" or "strict" scrutiny that race and gender under equal protection doctrine. The Third Circuit did outline that
499:
The decision received immediate attention with a New York Times article that broke down the arguments and the court's reasoning. Law professors were also skeptical of the decision and its implications. Professor Juan Perea argued that the interconnection between race and language is not properly
355:
on behalf of
Hernandez. MALDEF's argument focused on the wide usage of Spanish by Hispanics and the sociolinguistic evidence that supported Hispanics as living in a world where they are constantly required to switch between Spanish and English without the ability to turn off the ability to speak
322:
contours be defined over decades of litigation, Kaye argued that deciding the matter on state law would allow clearer protections earlier for New York residents. On the merits, Kaye believed too much deference was provided to the trial court's decision and was concerned that while the prosecutor
418:
In a closing dicta discussion, the plurality cited linguistic studies noting the complexity of language and bilingual distinctions. It further counseled that excluding bilinguals is unwise and may be unconstitutional under a different set of facts. Specifically, Kennedy outlined that creating a
500:
addressed and that the
Supreme Court should have found the prosecutor's peremptory strikes not race-neutral. Professor Deborah Ramirez highlighted that this decision could permit bilinguals to systematically be removed from juries and the pervasiveimpact that may have on Latinos. Professor
399:
case of racial discrimination, second, if it is made the burden shifts to the prosecutor to make a race-neutral showing for the strike, and finally the trial judge make a determination if the defendant's claim stands. Even though
Hernandez did not make a
478:
showing of discrimination must do so with "'legitimate reasons' that are 'related to the particular case to be tried.'" Stevens found the Court erred by allowing an illegitimate explanation for the prosecutor's actions that went to the heart of
508:" under Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Doctrine and noted lower courts had expanded the Supreme Court's reasoning to allow peremptory challenges when a juror understands a foreign language when the translation is disputed at trial.
439:
concurred in the plurality's judgement. O'Connor agreed with the plurality's deference to the trial court's decision, but believed it went too far in deciding the constitutional question. After outlining the Court's jurisprudence under
97:
A prosecutor's peremptory challenges of Spanish-speaking Latino jurors based on his doubts about the ability of such jurors to defer to the official translation of Spanish-language testimony did not violate the Equal Protection
544:
Latino jurors could not be struck because of the theoretical use of Spanish and placed a greater burden on trial judges to be "sensitive to the potential use of language-based peremptories for discriminatory purposes."
528:, states may be able to protect them on a state constitutional basis. Today, the case is understood to expand the Equal Protection Clause's protections of an unbiased jury to apply to ethnic origin alongside
1749:
1200:
568:
589:
Perea, Juan F. (2001). "The New American Spanish War: How the Courts and the Legislatures Are Aiding the Suppression of Languages Other Than English". In Dueñas Gonzalez Roseann; Melis, Ildikó (eds.).
769:
Brief for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund et. al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at *6-10, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (No. 89-7645) 1990 WL 10013132.
778:
Brief for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund et. al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at *16, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (No. 89-7645) 1990 WL 10013132.
760:
Brief for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund et. al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (No. 89-7645) 1990 WL 10013132.
219:
1193:
1105:
553:
408:
did not fail a race-neutral analysis because it does not show an intent by the prosecutor to remove all bilingual Latinos and a negative impact does not violate race neutrality.
72:
563:
540:
348:
404:
showing before the prosecutor presented a race-neutral reasoning, the Court found this did not impact the analysis because it rested with the trial judge's determination.
323:
expressed an interest in removing Spanish-speakers because of the interpreter there was no indication that any non-Latino jurors were asked if they spoke Spanish as well.
1186:
260:, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the peremptory exclusion of two Hispanic jurors was tantamount to exclusion because of race—and therefore violated the
419:
blanket policy regardless of the case's specific facts or for particular ethnic groups in certain communities language could be treated similarly to skin color under
1214:
491:
dissented in a separate statement agreeing with Justice Stevens' dissent on the prosecutor's insufficient explanation for dispelling an inference of racial animus.
387:
wrote the plurality opinion. After outlining the facts of the case and procedural history of the case, the Court moved on to the Court's jurisprudence on
1744:
558:
1759:
1296:
330:
to determine if a Latino juror struck from jury service because of their Spanish language in a court translated proceeding violated a defendant's
1574:
356:
either. It forecast that Hispanic jurors would become an "endangered species" if they are presumed to be biased, based on a common attribute.
524:
steps and what met the "legitimate reason" standard for a prosecutor to strike a juror. With the Supreme Court limiting the protections of
1278:
1754:
35:
634:
Montoya, M. (2000). Silence and Silencing: Their Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in Legal Communication, Pedagogy and Discourse.
625:
598:
1001:
Mirande, Alfredo (2019). "A Class Apart: The Exclusion of Latinos/as From Grand and Petit Juries". In Mirande, Alfredo (ed.).
909:
1606:
1301:
250:
are used to remove jurors thought to be undesirable for virtually any reason by either side in a court case. However, in
256:(1986), the Supreme Court ruled that peremptory challenges may not be used to remove jurors because of their race. In
233:
1374:
1248:
265:
216:
1630:
1318:
1178:
296:
1475:
505:
1210:
1094:
261:
1622:
1161:
1694:
432:
281:
145:
1256:
1228:
1109:
64:
303:
case of discrimination. The court did not find that striking a juror based on their language alone was
1590:
1614:
1544:
1527:
1390:
1125:
247:
1654:
1638:
1598:
1495:
446:
1143:
372:
foreign country and if a prosecutor could ever use a peremptory strike against a bilingual juror.
1678:
1662:
1536:
1456:
1436:
574:
284:. He appealed his conviction, claiming that under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision under
252:
796:
Transcript of Oral Argument at *26-27, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (No. 89-7645).
501:
1686:
1503:
1382:
1240:
621:
609:
594:
467:
463:
141:
129:
113:
1670:
1398:
1134:
304:
299:. New York's highest court of appeals agreed with the appellate court that Hernandez made a
241:
237:
787:
Transcript of Oral Argument at 4, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (No. 89-7645).
1646:
384:
157:
1116:
1566:
1552:
488:
436:
318:
for New York and for deciding the case on federal and not state law. Rather than allow
153:
133:
280:
Dinosio Hernandez was convicted by a jury of attempted murder on January 30, 1987, in
1738:
536:
352:
520:
Five years later, the Supreme Court cited to Hernandez v. New York as outlining the
971:
Multilingual Prosepective Jurors: Assessing California Standards Twenty Years After
165:
1152:
67:
314:
authored the dissent, criticizing the majority for the diminished protections of
311:
121:
956:
Hernandez v. New York, 18 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 115, 147 n.187 (1996) (citing
1089:
327:
83:
79:
898:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 375 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
862:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 375 (1991) (O'Connor, J., concurring).
850:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 372 (1991) (O'Connor, J., concurring).
738:
People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 363 (N.Y. 1990) (Kaye, J., dissenting).
729:
People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 360 (N.Y. 1990) (Kaye, J., dissenting).
591:
Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement
1170:
941:
Excluded Voices: The Disenfranchisement of Ethnic Groups from Jury Service
889:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 379 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
880:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 377 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
871:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 376 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
411:
The trial court's decision is afforded a high level of deference under
236:, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in
954:"Now that I Speak English, no me Dejan Hablar ": The Implications of
1713:
interpreted the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment. **
1003:
Gringo Injustice: Insider Perspectives on Police, Gangs, and Law
569:
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
1275:
1226:
1182:
272:
challenge to a peremptory strike based on a juror's ethnicity.
30:
973:
Hernandez v. New York, 8 Nw. J.L. & Soc. Pol'y 236 (2013).
858:
856:
751:, Hernandez v. New York, 111 S. Ct. 242 (1990) (No. 89-7645).
655:
U.S. v. Fuentes-Montijo, 68 F.3d 352, 354-55 (9th Cir. 1995)
620:. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp. 157–170.
474:, Stevens argued that a prosecutor who attempts to rebut a
244:
from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.
669:
People v. Hernandez, 140 A.D.2d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988).
1750:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
985:
We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy
1075:
Pemberthy v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 857, 872-73 (3d Cir. 1994).
1066:
Pemberthy v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 857, 869-70 (3d Cir. 1994).
593:. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. pp. 121–139.
1039:
Peremptory Exclusion of Spanish-Speaking Jurors: Could
618:
Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases
1017:
The Transformative Potential of Attorney Bilingualism
554:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 500
717:
People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356 (N.Y. 1990).
705:
People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 353 (N.Y. 1990).
564:
Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
541:
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1526:
1467:
1310:
1289:
1054:
U.S. v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 315 (2000).
1019:, 46 Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform 863, 895-898 (2013).
841:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 370-72 (1991).
832:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 363-66 (1991).
823:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 362-63 (1991).
814:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360-61 (1991).
805:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59 (1991).
395:three step process: first, a defendant must make a
210:
202:
194:
186:
178:
173:
102:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
910:"High Court Upholds Exclusion of Bilingual Jurors"
349:Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
747:People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. 1990),
687:Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358 (1991).
364:At oral argument, Hernandez argued that it is a
504:furthered this research on "bilingualism as an
696:People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. 1990)
1194:
1028:Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-70 (1995).
614:(1991) and the exclusion of bilingual jurors"
232:, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), was a decision by the
8:
928:Courts, Prosecutors, and the Fear of Spanish
987:. Harvard University press. pp. xxvii.
182:Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, White, Souter
1286:
1272:
1223:
1201:
1187:
1179:
20:
559:List of United States Supreme Court cases
190:O'Connor (in judgment), joined by Scalia
1297:Racial discrimination in jury selection
943:, 1993 Wis. L. Rev. 761, 762-63 (1993).
678:Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
648:
268:.The case is recognized as expanding a
1575:Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company
926:Juan F. Perea, Hernandez v. New York:
376:prosecutors to excuse certain jurors.
308:jurors' body-language signaled doubt.
1062:
1060:
1045:, 23 N.M. L. Rev. 467, 472-73 (1993).
996:
994:
18:1991 United States Supreme Court case
7:
960:, 19 F.3d 857, 858 (3rd Cir. 1994)).
725:
723:
713:
711:
665:
663:
661:
930:, 21 Hofstra L. Rev. 1, 3-5 (1992).
423:. However, this was not that case.
908:Greenhouse, Linda (May 21, 1991).
636:Michigan Journal of Race & Law
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1745:United States Supreme Court cases
1112:352 (1991) is available from:
1088:
29:
1760:1991 in United States case law
1607:J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.
338:Arguments at the Supreme Court
276:Procedural history of the case
1:
1483:Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co.
1302:Women in United States juries
291:Hernandez proceeded with his
1468:Fair cross-section in venire
1362:Brownfield v. South Carolina
326:The Supreme Court granted a
608:Soltero, Carlos R. (2006).
234:United States Supreme Court
206:Stevens, joined by Marshall
1776:
1375:Franklin v. South Carolina
1311:Racial exclusion in venire
1249:United States v. Armstrong
1171:Oyez (oral argument audio)
983:Abramson, Jeffrey (2000).
295:claim and appealed to the
266:United States Constitution
1755:Batson challenge case law
1319:Strauder v. West Virginia
1285:
1271:
1235:
1222:
516:Aftermath of the decision
495:Criticism of the decision
297:New York Court of Appeals
215:
107:
96:
28:
1489:Ballard v. United States
1476:Glasser v. United States
506:immutable characteristic
43:Argued February 25, 1991
1005:. Taylor & Francis.
262:Equal Protection Clause
1695:Flowers v. Mississippi
1041:Hernandez v. New York
532:protections for race.
466:dissented and Justice
282:New York Supreme Court
1631:Johnson v. California
1623:Miller-El v. Cockrell
1583:Hernandez v. New York
1528:Peremptory challenges
1418:Patton v. Mississippi
1338:Gibson v. Mississippi
1257:United States v. Bass
1229:Selective prosecution
1102:Hernandez v. New York
1095:Hernandez v. New York
612:Hernandez v. New York
248:Peremptory challenges
229:Hernandez v. New York
78:111 S. Ct. 1859; 114
54:Hernandez v. New York
24:Hernandez v. New York
1545:Griffith v. Kentucky
1444:Eubanks v. Louisiana
1391:Patterson v. Alabama
1344:Smith v. Mississippi
939:Deborah A. Ramierz,
45:Decided May 28, 1991
1655:Snyder v. Louisiana
1639:Miller-El v. Dretke
1599:Georgia v. McCollum
1511:Holland v. Illinois
1496:Taylor v. Louisiana
1356:Tarrance v. Florida
1162:Library of Congress
447:Washington v. Davis
146:Sandra Day O'Connor
1679:Felkner v. Jackson
1663:Rivera v. Illinois
1537:Batson v. Kentucky
1457:Vasquez v. Hillery
1450:Coleman v. Alabama
1437:Hernandez v. Texas
1277:Discrimination in
1215:criminal procedure
1015:Jayesh M. Rathod,
958:Pemberthy v. Beyer
575:Hernandez v. Texas
380:Plurality decision
351:(MALDEF) filed an
328:writ of certiorari
286:Batson v. Kentucky
253:Batson v. Kentucky
118:Associate Justices
1732:
1731:
1728:
1727:
1721:were civil cases.
1705:
1704:
1687:Foster v. Chatman
1517:Berghuis v. Smith
1504:Duren v. Missouri
1383:Norris v. Alabama
1368:Rogers v. Alabama
1326:Virginia v. Rives
1267:
1266:
1241:McCleskey v. Kemp
1093:Works related to
952:Alfredo Mirande,
484:cause challenge.
225:
224:
130:Thurgood Marshall
114:William Rehnquist
1767:
1671:Thaler v. Haynes
1591:Trevino v. Texas
1430:Avery v. Georgia
1424:Cassell v. Texas
1399:Hale v. Kentucky
1332:Neal v. Delaware
1287:
1273:
1224:
1211:equal protection
1203:
1196:
1189:
1180:
1175:
1169:
1166:
1160:
1157:
1151:
1148:
1142:
1139:
1133:
1130:
1124:
1121:
1115:
1092:
1076:
1073:
1067:
1064:
1055:
1052:
1046:
1037:Andrew McGuire,
1035:
1029:
1026:
1020:
1013:
1007:
1006:
998:
989:
988:
980:
974:
967:
961:
950:
944:
937:
931:
924:
918:
917:
905:
899:
896:
890:
887:
881:
878:
872:
869:
863:
860:
851:
848:
842:
839:
833:
830:
824:
821:
815:
812:
806:
803:
797:
794:
788:
785:
779:
776:
770:
767:
761:
758:
752:
745:
739:
736:
730:
727:
718:
715:
706:
703:
697:
694:
688:
685:
679:
676:
670:
667:
656:
653:
638:. Vol 5:847-911.
631:
604:
391:. It reiterated
305:reversible error
103:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
1775:
1774:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1724:
1701:
1647:Rice v. Collins
1615:Purkett v. Elem
1560:Ford v. Georgia
1522:
1463:
1350:Carter v. Texas
1306:
1281:
1263:
1231:
1218:
1207:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1158:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1131:
1128:
1122:
1119:
1113:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1065:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1014:
1010:
1000:
999:
992:
982:
981:
977:
968:
964:
951:
947:
938:
934:
925:
921:
907:
906:
902:
897:
893:
888:
884:
879:
875:
870:
866:
861:
854:
849:
845:
840:
836:
831:
827:
822:
818:
813:
809:
804:
800:
795:
791:
786:
782:
777:
773:
768:
764:
759:
755:
746:
742:
737:
733:
728:
721:
716:
709:
704:
700:
695:
691:
686:
682:
677:
673:
668:
659:
654:
650:
645:
628:
607:
601:
588:
585:
583:Further reading
550:
518:
502:Alfredo Mirandé
497:
460:
429:
385:Justice Kennedy
382:
362:
345:
340:
278:
158:Anthony Kennedy
156:
144:
142:John P. Stevens
132:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1773:
1771:
1763:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1747:
1737:
1736:
1730:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1723:
1722:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1700:
1699:
1691:
1683:
1675:
1667:
1659:
1651:
1643:
1635:
1627:
1619:
1611:
1603:
1595:
1587:
1579:
1571:
1567:Powers v. Ohio
1563:
1557:
1553:Teague v. Lane
1549:
1541:
1532:
1530:
1524:
1523:
1521:
1520:
1514:
1508:
1500:
1492:
1486:
1480:
1471:
1469:
1465:
1464:
1462:
1461:
1453:
1447:
1441:
1433:
1427:
1421:
1415:
1409:
1406:Smith v. Texas
1403:
1395:
1387:
1379:
1371:
1365:
1359:
1353:
1347:
1341:
1335:
1329:
1323:
1314:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1305:
1304:
1299:
1293:
1291:
1283:
1282:
1279:jury selection
1276:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1261:
1253:
1245:
1236:
1233:
1232:
1227:
1220:
1219:
1209:United States
1208:
1206:
1205:
1198:
1191:
1183:
1177:
1176:
1144:Google Scholar
1098:
1084:
1083:External links
1081:
1078:
1077:
1068:
1056:
1047:
1030:
1021:
1008:
990:
975:
962:
945:
932:
919:
914:New York Times
900:
891:
882:
873:
864:
852:
843:
834:
825:
816:
807:
798:
789:
780:
771:
762:
753:
740:
731:
719:
707:
698:
689:
680:
671:
657:
647:
646:
644:
641:
640:
639:
632:
626:
605:
599:
584:
581:
580:
579:
571:
566:
561:
556:
549:
546:
517:
514:
496:
493:
470:joined. Under
459:
456:
428:
425:
381:
378:
361:
358:
344:
341:
339:
336:
277:
274:
223:
222:
213:
212:
208:
207:
204:
200:
199:
196:
192:
191:
188:
184:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
170:
169:
168:
154:Antonin Scalia
134:Harry Blackmun
119:
116:
111:
105:
104:
100:
99:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1772:
1761:
1758:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1748:
1746:
1743:
1742:
1740:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1707:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1628:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1531:
1529:
1525:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1470:
1466:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1412:Hill v. Texas
1410:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1393:
1392:
1388:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1274:
1270:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1216:
1212:
1204:
1199:
1197:
1192:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1172:
1163:
1154:
1145:
1136:
1127:
1126:CourtListener
1118:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1097:at Wikisource
1096:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1072:
1069:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1034:
1031:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1004:
997:
995:
991:
986:
979:
976:
972:
966:
963:
959:
955:
949:
946:
942:
936:
933:
929:
923:
920:
915:
911:
904:
901:
895:
892:
886:
883:
877:
874:
868:
865:
859:
857:
853:
847:
844:
838:
835:
829:
826:
820:
817:
811:
808:
802:
799:
793:
790:
784:
781:
775:
772:
766:
763:
757:
754:
750:
749:cert. granted
744:
741:
735:
732:
726:
724:
720:
714:
712:
708:
702:
699:
693:
690:
684:
681:
675:
672:
666:
664:
662:
658:
652:
649:
642:
637:
633:
629:
627:0-292-71411-4
623:
619:
615:
613:
606:
602:
600:0-8058-4054-0
596:
592:
587:
586:
582:
577:
576:
572:
570:
567:
565:
562:
560:
557:
555:
552:
551:
547:
545:
542:
538:
537:habeas corpus
533:
531:
527:
523:
515:
513:
509:
507:
503:
494:
492:
490:
485:
482:
477:
473:
469:
465:
457:
455:
453:
449:
448:
443:
438:
434:
426:
424:
422:
416:
414:
409:
405:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
379:
377:
373:
370:
367:
360:Oral argument
359:
357:
354:
353:amicus curiae
350:
343:Amicus curiae
342:
337:
335:
334:protections.
333:
329:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
302:
298:
294:
289:
287:
283:
275:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:
249:
245:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:
221:
218:
214:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:Case opinions
172:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:Chief Justice
109:
108:
106:
101:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1693:
1685:
1677:
1669:
1661:
1653:
1645:
1637:
1629:
1621:
1613:
1605:
1597:
1589:
1582:
1581:
1573:
1565:
1559:
1551:
1543:
1535:
1516:
1510:
1502:
1494:
1488:
1482:
1474:
1455:
1449:
1443:
1435:
1429:
1423:
1417:
1411:
1405:
1397:
1389:
1381:
1373:
1367:
1361:
1355:
1349:
1343:
1337:
1331:
1325:
1317:
1255:
1247:
1239:
1101:
1071:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1024:
1016:
1011:
1002:
984:
978:
970:
969:Farida Ali,
965:
957:
953:
948:
940:
935:
927:
922:
913:
903:
894:
885:
876:
867:
846:
837:
828:
819:
810:
801:
792:
783:
774:
765:
756:
748:
743:
734:
701:
692:
683:
674:
651:
635:
617:
611:
590:
573:
534:
529:
525:
521:
519:
510:
498:
486:
480:
475:
471:
461:
451:
445:
441:
430:
420:
417:
412:
410:
406:
401:
396:
392:
388:
383:
374:
368:
365:
363:
346:
331:
325:
319:
315:
310:
300:
292:
290:
285:
279:
269:
257:
251:
246:
228:
227:
226:
211:Laws applied
166:David Souter
161:
149:
137:
125:
71:
53:
15:
1043:Happen Here
476:prima facie
427:Concurrence
402:prima facie
397:prima facie
301:prima facie
217:U.S. Const.
187:Concurrence
122:Byron White
1739:Categories
643:References
539:case, the
312:Judge Kaye
220:amend. XIV
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:395; 1991
431:Justices
258:Hernandez
179:Plurality
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
1719:Edmonson
1578:(1991)**
1485:(1946)**
1217:case law
1100:Text of
548:See also
530:Batson's
489:Blackmun
487:Justice
481:Batson's
468:Marshall
462:Justice
433:O'Connor
393:Batson's
320:Batson's
198:Blackmun
1711:Glasser
1479:(1942)*
1290:History
1135:Findlaw
1117:Cornell
464:Stevens
458:Dissent
454:claim.
264:of the
242:English
238:Spanish
203:Dissent
195:Dissent
98:Clause.
92:Holding
1698:(2019)
1690:(2015)
1682:(2011)
1674:(2010)
1666:(2009)
1658:(2008)
1650:(2006)
1642:(2005)
1634:(2005)
1626:(2003)
1618:(1995)
1610:(1994)
1602:(1992)
1594:(1992)
1586:(1991)
1570:(1991)
1562:(1991)
1556:(1989)
1548:(1987)
1540:(1986)
1519:(2010)
1513:(1990)
1507:(1979)
1499:(1975)
1491:(1946)
1460:(1986)
1452:(1967)
1446:(1958)
1440:(1954)
1432:(1953)
1426:(1950)
1420:(1947)
1414:(1942)
1408:(1940)
1402:(1938)
1394:(1935)
1386:(1935)
1378:(1910)
1370:(1904)
1364:(1903)
1358:(1903)
1352:(1900)
1346:(1896)
1340:(1896)
1334:(1881)
1328:(1880)
1322:(1880)
1260:(2002)
1252:(1996)
1244:(1987)
1174:
1168:
1165:
1159:
1156:
1153:Justia
1150:
1147:
1141:
1138:
1132:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1114:
624:
597:
578:(1954)
526:Batson
522:Batson
472:Batson
452:Batson
442:Batson
437:Scalia
421:Batson
413:Batson
389:Batson
369:Batson
366:per se
332:Batson
316:Batson
293:Batson
270:Batson
164:
162:·
160:
152:
150:·
148:
140:
138:·
136:
128:
126:·
124:
1715:Thiel
1108:
535:In a
1717:and
1213:and
1110:U.S.
622:ISBN
595:ISBN
444:and
435:and
347:The
240:and
86:2913
73:more
65:U.S.
63:500
1106:500
68:352
1741::
1104:,
1059:^
993:^
912:.
855:^
722:^
710:^
660:^
616:.
1709:*
1202:e
1195:t
1188:v
916:.
630:.
610:"
603:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.