Talk:Batson v. Kentucky

Untitled
I have done a good deal of work on this article but it still needs significant improvement by those better versed in the law than I am. Particularly, the idea of a prima facie challenge needs to be better explained. Also, in J. Burger's dissent he brings up points about the grounds for the court's decision that I do not fully understand. Jacob1207 18:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Great job and thanks for the additions. You seem to have captured the major aspects and explained them well using some of the text of the opinion and some of your own. That's exactly how I think these articles should be written. Some things are explained too much (i.e. voir dire) and some things too little (the concept of prima facie, as you said) for this article, but it gives a lot to work with. I will be editing this article a bit later and I'm sure others will as well, but you have given a great article to work with and make even greater. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.
 * Skyler 20:20, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Great article to harvest
I'm just tacking this here as a note to myself or to anyone else interested: This Times article has a really good overview of the different aspects of Batson and of Batson challenges, primarily insofar as they do or do not extend to sexual orientation, but also just as a general concept. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I did some work using this. I really like to use good secondary sources like this and avoid citing decisions. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)