Rice v. Collins
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Rice v. Collins?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a young African American woman, Juror 16, from a defendant's drug trial jury in a California court case, based on her youth and on her alleged "eye rolling" in answer to a question.[1][2][3] The defendant, Steven Martell Collins, challenged the striking of Juror 16, saying her exclusion was based on race, but the trial judge agreed that the prosecutor's reasons were race-neutral. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling, and the Federal District Court dismissed Collins' habeas corpus petition with prejudice. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating that the dismissal was unreasonable based, among other reasons, on the lack of evidence that the eye rolling had occurred.[4]
Rice v. Collins | |
---|---|
Argued December 5, 2005 Decided January 18, 2006 | |
Full case name | Rice, Warden, et al. v. Collins |
Docket no. | 04-52 |
Citations | 546 U.S. 333 (more) 126 S. Ct. 969; 163 L. Ed. 2d 824; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 913 |
Case history | |
Prior | Superior Court of California convicted defendant; California Court of Appeal upheld conviction, People v. Collins, No. B106939 (Dec. 12, 1997); Supreme Court of California denied petition for review; United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice respondent's petition for a writ of habeas corpus; reversed, 348 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); cert. granted, 545 U.S. 1151 (2005). |
Holding | |
Habeas corpus relief may not be granted on the basis of debatable inferences used to overturn the trial court's finding. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by unanimous |
Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Souter |
Laws applied | |
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) |