granting a new trial where the trial judge denied a peremptory strike after saying that “until either removed from the bench by the disciplinary committee or ordered to have a new trial, I am going to seek to have this proportional representation on the juries that hear cases in this court”
How later courts described this case
- granting a new trial where the trial judge denied a peremptory strike after saying that “until either removed from the bench by the disciplinary committee or ordered to have a new trial, I am going to seek to have this proportional representation on the juries that hear cases in this court”
- stating that “[t]he lead opinion [in Bell] stated in dictum that the improper denial of a peremptory challenge on a basis other than race is subject to [harmless-error] analysis”
- noting "that Batson errors are, in fact, 'structural' and require 'automatic' reversal" and applying the rule in a civil action
- “Only parts I through III of the lead opinion in Bell garnered majority support.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Weaver, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. I would not reverse and remand this case because I believe that leave to appeal was improvidently granted. I am not persuaded that the decision of the Court of Appeals was clearly erroneous or that defendant has suffered any injustice in this case.
Further, I do not support the majority’s discussion regarding possible referral of the trial judge to the Judicial Tenure Commission.
Hathaway, J., concurred with Weaver, J.