Talk:Batson v. Kentucky

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Kentucky / Louisville Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled[edit]

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[edit]

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 &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]