Batson v. Kentucky
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Batson_v._Kentucky an entity of type: Thing
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company) and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex (J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.).
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), fue un caso en el que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos dictaminó que las recusaciones sin causa (peremptory challenges) por parte de un fiscal en la selección del jurado para un caso criminal no pueden ser utilizadas para excluir jurados basándose únicamente en su raza. El Tribunal dictaminó que esta práctica viola la cláusula de igual protección de la Decimocuarta Enmienda. El caso dio lugar al término "impugnación Batson" (Batson challenge), una objeción a una recusación sin causa sobre la base de la regla establecida por la decisión del Tribunal Supremo en este caso. La jurisprudencia posterior ha dado lugar a la extensión de Batson para casos civiles (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company) y los casos en que los miembros del jurado son excluid
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky
rdf:langString
Caso Batson contra Kentucky
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky
xsd:integer
993666
xsd:integer
1069988353
rdf:langString
Remanded
rdf:langString
Burger
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
rdf:langString
Burger
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
rdf:langString
Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Defendant found guilty in Kentucky Circuit Court; Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed; cert. granted, 471 U.S. 1052
xsd:integer
79
xsd:integer
476
xsd:gMonthDay
--12-12
xsd:integer
1985
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky,
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-30
xsd:integer
1986
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky
rdf:langString
Strauder v. West Virginia reaffirmed; prosecutors may not use race as a factor in making peremptory challenges; defendants must only make a prima facie showing on the evidence from their case to mount a challenge to race-based use of peremptories.
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky
rdf:langString
Powell
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company) and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex (J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.). The principle had been established previously by several state courts, including the California Supreme Court in 1978, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1979, and the Florida Supreme Court in 1984.
rdf:langString
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), fue un caso en el que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos dictaminó que las recusaciones sin causa (peremptory challenges) por parte de un fiscal en la selección del jurado para un caso criminal no pueden ser utilizadas para excluir jurados basándose únicamente en su raza. El Tribunal dictaminó que esta práctica viola la cláusula de igual protección de la Decimocuarta Enmienda. El caso dio lugar al término "impugnación Batson" (Batson challenge), una objeción a una recusación sin causa sobre la base de la regla establecida por la decisión del Tribunal Supremo en este caso. La jurisprudencia posterior ha dado lugar a la extensión de Batson para casos civiles (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company) y los casos en que los miembros del jurado son excluidos sobre la base del sexo (J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.).
rdf:langString
White
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Marshall
rdf:langString
O'Connor
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Swain v. Alabama
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
19975