noting that trial courts sometimes make “implieit[ ]” findings when carrying out the Batson analysis
How later courts described this case
- noting that trial courts sometimes make “implieit[ ]” findings when carrying out the Batson analysis
- rejecting a Batson claim “where more than one reason [wa]s given for a strike, and the Batson chal- lenger fail[ed] to rebut one of the reasons”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYNES, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the denial of the request for an expanded COA. Although I concur in the decision to affirm the district court regarding the strike of juror Olive, I do so only because of the highly deferential review standard required by AEDPA. The state trial court’s approach to deciding the Batson, challenge leaves much to be desired, and some of the comments by counsel and colloquies in the transcript of the trial are disturbing and inappropriate. Had this been a direct appeal of the state trial court’s decision, my decision very likely would have been different. Applying the precedents of the Supreme Court and our court construing AEDPA, however, I am required to concur in the affirmance.