求助PDF
{"title":"Stricken: the Need for Positive Statutory Law to Prevent Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes of Disabled Jurors.","authors":"Jordan Benson","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/5hnrf","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 R I. JURY SELECTION AND THE BATSON RIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 R II. CREATION AND EXPANSION OF THE BATSON CHALLENGE . 442 R A. Mechanics of the Batson Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . 442 R B. Batson’s Equal Protection Analysis Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 R III. EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS UNLIKELY TO LEAD TO THE EXTENSION OF BATSON PROTECTIONS TO THE DISABLED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 R A. Disability Is Subject Only to Rational Basis Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 R B. The ADA Does Not Entitle the Disabled to Heightened Scrutiny Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 R C. Statutory Protections of the ADA Do Not Independently Entitle the Disabled to BatsonLike Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 R D. Recent Appellate Court Decisions Have Upheld the Use of Peremptory Strikes Against Disabled Jurors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 R IV. COULD THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR DISABLED JURORS?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454 R V. POSITIVE STATUTORY LAW IS NEEDED TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN JURY SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 R A. Federal Legislation Is Unlikely to Be Successful in Reducing Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 R","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"103 2 1","pages":"437-64"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/5hnrf","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
引用
批量引用
打击:制定积极成文法防止残疾陪审员歧视性强制罢工的必要性。
简介。438 R.I.陪审团的选择和巴特森权利。441 R II。巴特森挑战赛的创建和扩展。442 R A.巴特森挑战赛的力学。442 R B.Batson的平等保护分析框架。445 R III.现行宪法不太可能将巴特森保护扩大到残疾人。447 R.A.残疾仅接受理性基础审查。448 R.B.《残疾人法案》不赋予残疾人加强审查保护的权利。450 R.C.《美国残疾人法》的法定保护不独立地赋予残疾人类似蝙蝠的听证会的权利。452 R.D.最近上诉法院的裁决搁置了对残疾陪审员使用永久罢工。452 R IV.理性基础测试能为残疾陪审员提供保护吗。454诉积极成文法需要防止陪审团选择中基于残疾的歧视。458 R.A.联邦立法不太可能成功减少歧视性永久罢工。459 R
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。