stating that "in the case of religion, the attribution is not overly broad, and therefore not invidious, when the belief is an article of faith[; b]ecause all members of the group share the same faith by definition, it is not unjust to attribute beliefs characteristic of the faith to all of them"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "in the case of religion, the attribution is not overly broad, and therefore not invidious, when the belief is an article of faith[; b]ecause all members of the group share the same faith by definition, it is not unjust to attribute beliefs characteristic of the faith to all of them"
- holding that “interests served by the system of peremptory challenges in Texas are sufficiently great to justify State implementation of choices made by litigants to exclude persons from service on juries . . . on the basis of their religious affiliation.”
- concluding, in case involving strike of Pentecostals, that peremptory strikes based on religious affiliation do not violate the federal constitution
- holding that state interests in peremptory challenges justify excluding prospective jurors based on their religious affiliation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, P.J.,
adhering to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion on original submission, I join the opinion of majority on rehearing.
CLINTON, OVERSTREET and MALONEY, JJ., dissent.