noting Batson did not transform “a shield against discrimination into a sword cutting against the purpose of a peremptory challenge”
How later courts described this case
- noting Batson did not transform “a shield against discrimination into a sword cutting against the purpose of a peremptory challenge”
- listing eight factors and noting they are “not exclusive”
- listing eight nonexclusive factors relevant to determine whether prima facie case has been shown
- lead opinion and Madsen, C.J., concurring
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Madsen, C.J.
¶21 (concurring) — I agree with the lead opinion in this case. However, going forward, I agree with the rule advocated by the dissent.