holding that it was racially discriminatory for an African-American defendant to use a peremptory challenge to unseat a juror of the same race
How later courts described this case
- holding that it was racially discriminatory for an African-American defendant to use a peremptory challenge to unseat a juror of the same race
- concluding either remedy announced in Batson appropriate "depending on the particular circumstances at trial”
- concern over focus of case changing to “a juror’s right to serve rather than the parties’ right to select a jury to try the case,” labeling the holding as "an example of reaching out and embracing a novel legal idea which in practice paints the Court into the proverbial corner. The problem is the paint never dries to allow the painter to leave the room."
- `We adopt this flexible approach as the best solution. We interpret Batson as suggesting that either remedy may be appropriate depending on the particular circumstances at trial'
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the Court’s decision as a proper application of stare decisis. However, the facts of this case point out an almost untenable application of the United States Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding a juror’s right to serve rather than the parties’ right to select a jury to try the case. It is an example of reaching out and embracing a novel legal idea which in practice paints the Court into the proverbial corner. The problem is the paint never dries to allow the painter to leave the room.