No. 21-6484

Thomas Lee Battle v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2021-12-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: batson-challenge batson-v-kentucky burden-shifting civil-rights discrimination hypothetical-justifications jury-selection prima-facie prima-facie-case prosecutorial-discretion title-vii
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment EmploymentDiscrimina JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-03-04
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Should analysis of a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson prohibit reliance upon hypothetical justifications never advanced by the prosecutor?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should analysis of a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson prohibit reliance upon hypothetical justifications never advanced by the prosecutor?

Docket Entries

2022-03-07
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
2022-02-15
Reply of petitioner Thomas Battle filed. (Distributed)
Main DocumentProof of Service
2022-02-01
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
2021-12-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 2, 2022.
2021-12-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
Main DocumentProof of Service
2021-11-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2022)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionProof of Service

Attorneys

California
Seth Matthew Friedman — California Department of Justice, Respondent
Thomas Battle
Elias Paul Batchelder — Office of the State Public Defender, Petitioner