assessing race-neutral rationale for challenge and noting that challenging party “did not change his position” during discussion of challenge as a reason to regard it as adequate
How later courts described this case
- assessing race-neutral rationale for challenge and noting that challenging party “did not change his position” during discussion of challenge as a reason to regard it as adequate
- dismissal of juror for failing to disclose her own experience with violent crime and her son’s prior criminal record
- "At Batson's second step, the question of whether the state has offered a 'race-neutral' reason is a question of law that we review de novo"
- “To charge Marshall with this conduct, the Commonwealth should have simply added Marshall’s name to that portion of the indictment alleging murder, without reference to Marshall’s acting as an accessory before the fact.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Marshall v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 529 (2012)
457 Mass. 461, 476 (2010), abrogated on other grounds, Marshall v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 529, 535
The opinion
Marshall, C.J.
(concurring, with whom Spina, J., joins). I agree with the result reached by the court in these cases. I write separately to express again my concern about the continued use of peremptory challenges. See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460, 468 (2003) (Marshall, C.J., concurring). I remain persuaded that, “rather than impose on trial judges the impossible task of scrutinizing peremptory challenges for improper motives,” Commonwealth v. Calderon, 431 Mass. 21, 29 (2000) (Lynch, J., dissenting), it is time either to abolish them entirely, or to restrict their use substantially.