People v. Madrid

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Johnson

    549 P.3d 985 (Colo. 2024)   Cited 2 times
    Acknowledging that some parties continue to use peremptory strikes "to cloak purposeful discrimination," but stating that we must still "adhere to the Supreme Court’s three-step framework in Batson to reconcile peremptory strikes and the Equal Protection Clause."

    The standard for doing so isn’t high and requires the objecting party to present evidence sufficient to raise only an inference of discrimination rather than proof by a preponderance of the evidence that discrimination occurred. Valdez, 966 P.2d at 590; accord People v. Madrid, 2023 CO 12, ¶ 32, 526 P.3d 185, 193. [9, 10] ¶19 If the objecting party meets this standard, the burden shifts to the striking party to offer a race- or gender-neutral reason for the strike.

  2. People v. Romero:

    555 P.3d 582 (Colo. 2024)

    At this final step, the objecting party may present evidence or argument to rebut the striking party’s stated reason for excusing the prospective juror in question. People v. Madrid, 2023 CO 12, ¶ 34, 526 P.3d 185, 193. The trial court must then consider the "persuasiveness" of the striking party’s reason for the peremptory strike in light of any rebuttal offered.

  3. People v. Austin

    549 P.3d 977 (Colo. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    [7, 8] ¶8 Under Batson, the opposing party must make a prima facie showing that the strike was made with a discriminatory purpose. See Johnson II, ¶ 18; People v. Madrid, 2023 CO 12, ¶ 32, 526 P.3d 185, 193. The striking party can then rebut the inference of discrimination by providing a facially race- or gender-neutral reason for the strike.

  4. The Gazette v. Bourgerie

    2024 CO 78 (Colo. 2024)

    ¶22 This court has long distinguished between questions of law, which we review de novo, and questions of fact, which trigger deference to the trial court's judgment. People v. Madrid, 2023 CO 12, ¶ 37, 526 P.3d 185, 194. We review de novo questions of law concerning the correct construction and application of CORA and the CCJRA.

  5. Clark v. People

    553 P.3d 215 (Colo. 2024)

    Accordingly, the district court's error is structural and, in my opinion, entitles Clark to a new trial. See People v. Madrid, 2023 CO 12, ¶ 60, 526 P.3d 185, 198. Thus, I respectfully dissent.

  6. People v. Hernandez-Escajeda

    2024 COA 111 (Colo. App. 2024)

    See § 16-12-102(1), C.R.S. 2024; People v. Madrid, 2023 CO 12, ¶ 37.