Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2/13/2001

State v. Lucas

Citations

18 P.3d 160
199 Ariz. 366
341 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 12
2001 Ariz. App. LEXIS 27

How courts have described this case

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

holding that, “[r]egardless of how many other nondiscriminatory factors are considered, any consideration of a discriminatory factor directly conflicts with the purpose of Batson and taints the entire jury selection process”
holding explanation that southern men take a negative view of pregnant women who work “wrongfully excludes a subgroup of one gender from participation in the judicial process and reinforces prejudicial views of the relative abilities of men and women”
“Regardless of how many other nondiscriminatory factors are considered, any consideration of a discriminatory factor directly conflicts with the purpose of Batson and taints the entire jury 37 selection process.”
“Once a discriminatory reason has been uncovered—either inherent or pretextual— this reason taints any other neutral reason for the strike.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Payton v. Kearse, 495 S.E.2d 205, 210 (S.C. 1998))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garbarino, Fidel, Gerber

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

27 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.