Supreme Court· 3/30/2010

Berghuis v. Smith

Citations

559 U.S. 314
130 S. Ct. 1382
176 L. Ed. 2d 249
2010 U.S. LEXIS 2925

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

discussing that Duren first and foremost requires a habeas petitioner to show that the under- representation complained of was due to systematic exclusion
acknowledging that no decision of the Court has specified the proper method or methods by which underrepresentation is appropriately measured and taking no position on the method or methods that should be used
acknowledging that no decision of the Court has specified the proper method or methods by which underrepresentation is appropriately measured and taking no position on the method or methods that should be used
explaining that a defendant must show that “systematic exclusion accounts for the underrepresentation.”
emphasizing that the defendant bears the burden to prove the third element as part of the prima facie case and generally must point to more than statistical evidence tending to show a disparity
describing the Sixth Amendment right to a jury “drawn from sources reflecting a fair cross section of the community” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ginsburg, Ginsbueg, Thomas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

98 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.