# Lawrence L. Simmons v. Howard L. Beyer and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, W. Cary Edwards

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · February 10, 1995 · 44 F.3d 1160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487699

## Case

- **Full name:** Lawrence L. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. Howard L. BEYER; And the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, W. Cary Edwards
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** February 10, 1995
- **Citations:** 44 F.3d 1160; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2777
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Nygaard
- **Judges:** Becker, Cowen, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Mansmann, Nygaard, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 62 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487699

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[t]he nature of the crime and its racial configuration — the murder and robbery of an elderly Caucasian physician by a young African-American man — contribute significantly to [defendant's] prima facie case”
- holding that a prima facie case was established via a combination of the defendant's race, the prosecution's exclusion of at least one potential juror of the same race, and the circumstances surrounding the crime
- explaining that, in determining whether “appellate delay ha[s] violated due process,” courts should consider the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant” (emphasis added
- stating that usual remedy for jury selection violations is conditional grant which allows state to retry petitioner before properly selected jury
- stating where a claim on appeal is ultimately without merit, “the prejudice stemming from the delay alone would be a slender reed on which to support [petitioner’s] unconditional release”

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, McKEE and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges.
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
The petition for rehearing filed by appel-lees in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judge Greenberg and Judge Alito would grant rehearing in banc. Judge Greenberg has filed an opinion dissenting from the order denying rehearing in banc, joined therein by Judge Alito.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487699. Public record. Not legal advice.