Powers v. Ohio
E821202
Powers v. Ohio is a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded Batson v. Kentucky by allowing criminal defendants to challenge racially discriminatory peremptory jury strikes even when the excluded jurors are of a different race than the defendant.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Powers v. Ohio canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799067 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Powers v. Ohio Context triple: [Batson v. Kentucky, laterExtendedBy, Powers v. Ohio]
-
A.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
B.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
-
C.
Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the legality of police "stop and frisk" searches based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.
-
D.
Powell v. Alabama
Powell v. Alabama is a landmark 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held in capital cases the Due Process Clause requires defendants be given access to effective legal counsel, especially when they are young, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged.
-
E.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Powers v. Ohio Target entity description: Powers v. Ohio is a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded Batson v. Kentucky by allowing criminal defendants to challenge racially discriminatory peremptory jury strikes even when the excluded jurors are of a different race than the defendant.
-
A.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
B.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
-
C.
Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the legality of police "stop and frisk" searches based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.
-
D.
Powell v. Alabama
Powell v. Alabama is a landmark 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held in capital cases the Due Process Clause requires defendants be given access to effective legal counsel, especially when they are young, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged.
-
E.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ jury selection ⓘ |
| citation |
111 S. Ct. 1364
ⓘ
113 L. Ed. 2d 411 ⓘ 499 U.S. 400 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision | Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1991-04-01 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 89-5011 ⓘ |
| expanded | Batson v. Kentucky NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
A criminal defendant has third-party standing to raise the Equal Protection rights of excluded jurors.
ⓘ
A criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded jurors share the same race. ⓘ The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a prosecutor from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely on account of their race. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| impact |
broadened the class of defendants who can challenge racially discriminatory peremptory strikes
ⓘ
recognized that jurors possess an Equal Protection right not to be excluded from jury service on the basis of race ⓘ |
| joinedDissent | Byron R. White NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Antonin Scalia
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Equal Protection rights of jurors
ⓘ
peremptory challenges ⓘ racial discrimination in jury selection ⓘ third-party standing ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| overruledOrLimited | prior interpretations of Batson that required racial identity between defendant and excluded jurors ⓘ |
| petitioner | Larry Joe Powers NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | criminal conviction in Ohio state court ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Batson v. Kentucky
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Holland v. Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | Ohio NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | conviction vacated and case remanded ⓘ |
| standingDoctrine | third-party standing for criminal defendants to assert jurors’ Equal Protection rights ⓘ |
| stateParty | Ohio NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| term | 1990 Term ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Powers v. Ohio Description of subject: Powers v. Ohio is a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded Batson v. Kentucky by allowing criminal defendants to challenge racially discriminatory peremptory jury strikes even when the excluded jurors are of a different race than the defendant.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.