# Stevens v. Epps

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 7, 2010 · 618 F.3d 489

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438298

## Case

- **Full name:** Benny Joe STEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christopher B. EPPS, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 7, 2010
- **Citations:** 618 F.3d 489; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18696; 2010 WL 3467234
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Haynes
- **Judges:** Jolly, Benavides, Haynes
- **Cited by:** 17 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/9438298

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438298. Public record. Not legal advice.