a substantial violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial warranted reversal of defendant’s conviction and sentence
How later courts described this case
- a substantial violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial warranted reversal of defendant’s conviction and sentence
- noting that the majority of courts have delegated the Batson remedy to the discretion of the trial -5- court
- “Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the striking party’s explanation, the reason |14offered will be deemed race-neutral.”
- noting that the majority of courts have delegated the Batson remedy to the discretion of the trial court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GUIDRY, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part.
U concur in the majority opinion regarding the “reverse Batson” challenge. The race neutral reasons articulated by defense counsel for striking the nine challenged jurors were adequate. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995).
I dissent from the discussion concerning the trial court’s choice of remedy. I believe that defense counsel collaboration during voir dire might warrant the type of peremptory challenge limitations imposed by the trial court in this case. However, any discussion of this issue is dicta, since our determination on the reverse Batson issue requires reversal of the convictions and remand for a new trial.