<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[batson - Philip D. Cave]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/batson/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/batson/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:45:09 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[In the Supremes]]></title>
                <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/in-the-supremes/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.court-martial.com/blog/in-the-supremes/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:10:55 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Members (Jury) Issues]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[batson]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[court-martial]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[scotusblog]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[sixth amendment]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[UCMJ]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>SCOTUSBlog notes two new petitions with potential impact on a court-martial practice under the UCMJ. Title: NIBCO, Inc. v. Rivera Docket: 10-383 Issue(s): (1) Whether a court of appeals must conduct a comparative juror analysis when reviewing a claim under Batson v. Kentucky, even though the comparative analysis was neither raised before nor considered by&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>SCOTUSBlog notes two new petitions with potential impact on a court-martial practice under the UCMJ.</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
Title: NIBCO, Inc. v. Rivera Docket: 10-383      Issue(s): (1) Whether a court of appeals must conduct a comparative juror analysis when reviewing a claim under Batson v. Kentucky, even though the comparative analysis was neither raised before nor considered by the trial court below; and (2) whether a court of appeals that identifies a suspected Batson problem based on a comparative juror analysis never considered by the trial court can vitiate a trial without remanding to allow the trial court to consider the new arguments and evidence in the first instance.

 </p>
</blockquote>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 
Title: Dunn v. Louisiana Docket: 10-386      Issue(s): Whether a court’s modification of the three-step Batson v. Kentucky analysis, requiring the defense to prove that its strikes were not motivated by race, while simultaneously requiring it to prove that the state’s strikes were motivated by race, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

</p>
</blockquote>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>