holding that defendant who shouted, “No, Marvin,” when his co-defendant moved to shoot a security guard did not intend to identify his codefendant as Marvin or make any assertion; thus, the utterance was not a statement for purposes of hearsay rule
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendant who shouted, “No, Marvin,” when his co-defendant moved to shoot a security guard did not intend to identify his codefendant as Marvin or make any assertion; thus, the utterance was not a statement for purposes of hearsay rule
- noting that "the exclusion of even one ... member of the venire for racial reasons violates the equal protection clause"
- prosecutor's "generalized statement of reasons ... may mask discriminatory motives and thus may contribute to ... a defendant's attempt to make a prima facie showing"
- main function of prima facie case requirement is to “eliminate the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KERN, Senior Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with the affirmance of appellant’s convictions and much of the reasoning in the majority opinion, I am not persuaded that the so-called Batson issue was a close one or that the trial court’s Batson inquiry was not entirely satisfactory. I am persuaded that the trial court’s analysis of the circumstances concerning the prosecutor’s use of preemptory challenges here was quite adequate and that its decision that no prima facie case of discrimination was shown was quite correct. As the majority points out, appellant by “focusing primarily on numbers ... failed to meet his prima facie burden.”