George McCrory v. Robert J. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Hon. Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[an attorney’s] explanation that a venireperson was excluded because he or she seemed, for example, inattentive or hostile [to the attorney’s client] if credible, is sufficient”
• holding that “the failure to object to 8 an adversary’s use of peremptory challenges until after the completion of jury 9 selection waives the right to do so” on appeal
• noting that a timely objection allows an error to be remedied in \a number of ways\ including disallowing the challenge, adding additional jurors to the venire, or \begin[ning] anew with a fresh panel\
• noting that a timely objection allows an error to be remedied in “a number of ways” including disallowing the challenge, adding additional jurors to the venire, or “begin[ning] anew with a fresh panel”
• noting that peremptory challenges “may legitimately be based not only on answers given by the prospective juror to questions posed on voir dire, but also on the prosecutor's observations of the prospective juror”
• noting that a timely objection allows an error to be remedied in “a number of ways” including disallowing the challenge, adding additional jurors to the venire, or “begin[ning] anew with a fresh panel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).