What Justice Thomas Gets Right About Batson

Thomas Ward Frampton, Stanford Law Review & The Stanford Law Review

Journal: Stanford Law Review

Volume: 44

First Page: 1

Year: 1992

Bluebook Citation: 44 STAN. L. REV. 1 (1992)

Author: Thomas Ward Frampton: all 9 publications


Citation analytics

How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited
2
Citing decisions
2
Courts citing

Courts citing this journal article

9th Cir.1
D. Guam1
Most recently cited by1
  • 2019Davis v. Guam D. Guam

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Abstract

In Flowers v. Mississippi, the Supreme Court vacated the capital conviction of Curtis Flowers; prosecutor Doug Evans was “motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent” when he used a peremptory strike to exclude a black potential juror, the Court held, violating a prohibition against such conduct first announced in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Thomas penned a lengthy dissent that has been met with disdain in the popular press. But Justice Thomas’s dissent also gets right many things about the Batson doctrine and race in the courtroom that the Court’s liberal wing has proven loath to confront.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.