State v. Paleo
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GERBER, Judge.
¶ 1 Appellant Joseph Paleo (“Paleo”) appeals from his conviction and sentencing for aggravated D.U.I. He argues that the judge erred by holding Batson inapplicable when the prosecution elects to refrain from using all its peremptory challenges.
¶ 2 The United States Supreme Court has held that using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of their race or gender is unconstitutional. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Such purposeful discrimination violates both the defendant’s and the potential juror’s right to equal…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. PaleoArizona Supreme Court · 2001
- Admiral Way, Llc, Apps/cross-resps v. Zurich American Ins. Co., Resps/cross-appsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
- Zurich American Ins., Resp/cross-apps v. Ledcor Industries, Inc., App/cross-respCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018