Holland v. Duchamp

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that trial counsel’s vague reference to the challenge member’s demeanor, being he “blink[ed]” and “seemed uncomforta- ble” without further explanation, did not provide a suffi- ciently articulated reason to sustain the challenge
• declining to follow the Supreme Court’s holding in Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 769 (1995), that the explanation for the challenge need not “make[ ] sense”
• distinguishing Supreme Court precedent fo- cusing on “ ‘the genuineness of the motive’ . . . [t]o the ex- tent that [it] suggests that unreasonable or implausible ex- planations may suffice in civilian society”
• there is no right to have a court-martial panel drawn from a representative cross-section of the population
• “[S]ervicemembers do not have the right in a court-martial to a jury panel drawn from a representative cross-section of the population . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).