Foster v. Chatman
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Foster_v._Chatman an entity of type: Thing
Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Foster v. Chatman
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Timothy Tyrone Foster, Petitioner v. Bruce Chatman, Warden
xsd:integer
50618527
xsd:integer
1029611965
rdf:langString
Thomas
xsd:integer
14
rdf:langString
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
<second>
172800.0
<second>
17280.0
rdf:langString
___
xsd:integer
578
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-02
xsd:integer
2015
rdf:langString
Foster v. Chatman,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-23
xsd:integer
2016
rdf:langString
Timothy Tyrone Foster, Petitioner v. Bruce Chatman, Warden
rdf:langString
The Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court denying Foster a Certificate of Probable Cause on his Batson claim. The decision that Foster failed to show purposeful discrimination was clearly erroneous under the three-step process established by Batson. Supreme Court of Georgia reversed and remanded.
rdf:langString
Foster v. Chatman
rdf:langString
Roberts
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma. It held that the petitioner, Timothy Foster, had established purposeful discrimination, and that as a result, the state habeas court and Supreme Court of Georgia had erred in denying his Batson claim that black jurors were struck from his jury pool on the basis of race. In concluding its opinion, the Court noted that "[t]wo peremptory strikes on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution allows." The court frequently cited Snyder v. Louisiana in its decision.
rdf:langString
Alito
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
15608