Legal Opinion

State v. Valdez

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 2006No. 20040633PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURHAM, Chief Justice:

¶ 1 In this opinion, we clarify an important procedural rule that has apparently caused some confusion in Utah’s lower courts. The issues in this case arise from the State’s use of its peremptory challenges to exclude female potential jurors from the jury at the trial of Anthony James Valdez. Valdez objected, arguing that the State’s use of its peremptory challenges was unconstitutional under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 1 However, Valdez did not raise his Batson challenge until after the trial jury had been empaneled and sworn…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. IshIdaho Supreme Court · 2020
  2. State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2010
  3. State v. PalmerUtah Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State v. Chavez-EspinozaCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2008
  5. State v. HarrisUtah Supreme Court · 2012

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

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

Powered by the Exa API