Skip to main content

People v. Bryant

Citations

  • 491 Mich. 575
  • 822 N.W.2d 124
  • 2012 WL 2470124
  • 2012 Mich. LEXIS 1005

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the Court of Appeals erred by basing its conclusion under the second Duren prong solely on the composition of the defendant’s specific venire
  • stating that there must be evidence of exclusion over a significant period
  • discussing the statistical evidence necessary for a defendant to establish the second prong of the Duren test
  • discussing the statistical evidence necessary for a defendant to establish the second prong of the Duren test
  • differentiating a venire, which consists of a panel of potential jurors called into a courtroom, from a group of people generally summoned to appear for jury duty
  • “[I]t is clear that African-Americans were underrepresented. The pertinent question then is whether this underrepresentation in the composition of jury pools and venires during this time was nonetheless fair and reasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cavanagh, Young, Markman, Kelly, Zahra, Hathaway

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.