State v. Moore

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Moore

153 A.3d 1289, 324 Conn. 915, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 35

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJanuary 25, 2017

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 153 A.3d 1289 (State v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Moore, 153 A.3d 1289, 324 Conn. 915, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 35 (Colo. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*1290The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 169 Conn.App. 470, 151 A.3d 412 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"In concluding that the defendant could not prevail on his motion to strike the voir dire panel on the ground that it failed to constitute a fair cross-section of the community:

"1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that census data pertaining to the entire African-American population in Connecticut and New London county was not probative evidence with respect to the claimed underrepresentation of African-American males in the jury pool?

"2. Did the Appellate Court properly decline, in light of the provisions of General Statutes § 51-232 (c), to exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to enforce the collection of demographic data to permit analysis of the diversity of jury panels in Connecticut?"

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1290The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 169 Conn.App. 470, 151 A.3d 412 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"In concluding that the defendant could not prevail on his motion to strike the voir dire panel on the ground that it failed to constitute a fair cross-section of the community:

"1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that census data pertaining to the entire African-American population in Connecticut and New London county was not probative evidence with respect to the claimed underrepresentation of African-American males in the jury pool?

"2. Did the Appellate Court properly decline, in light of the provisions of General Statutes § 51-232 (c), to exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to enforce the collection of demographic data to permit analysis of the diversity of jury panels in Connecticut?"

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A.3d 1289, 324 Conn. 915, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-conn-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack