Legal Opinion

Holtzman v. Supreme Court

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1988PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter P. Rosato, J.

Plaintiff Holtzman, in her official capacity as District Attorney of Kings County, seeks a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3001, (1) declaring that both the United States and New York State Constitutions prohibit defense counsel from exercising "race-based” peremptory challenges, i.e., using peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on the basis of race, or for that matter, on the basis of sex, religion, or national origin; (2) declaring that the Judges and Justices named herein are not to grant peremptory challenges without making further inquiry…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Polk County v. DodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. KernAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  2. People v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Ferrer v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1996
  4. People v. Piermont, New York County Courts1989
  5. Holtzman v. Supreme CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API