# United States v. James Robertson

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · November 12, 2013 · 736 F.3d 1317

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798151

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** November 12, 2013
- **Citations:** 736 F.3d 1317; 2013 WL 6018910
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jordan
- **Judges:** Jordan, Cox, Dubina
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798151

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a prima facie case from the striking of a single African-American juror in the context of the case, which involved a white supremacist on trial for killing a African-American man and the venire contained only three African-American members
- holding that the district court could consider the subject matter of the case being tried and the racial composition of the venire members

## Opinion text

JORDAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Except as to the discussion and resolution of the Batson claim, I join the majority opinion. As to the Batson claim, I concur in the judgment. Although the district court initially (and improperly) appeared to use the cause standard when sustaining the government’s Batson challenge to the defense’s peremptory strike of JMD, see Trial Transcript [D.E. 207] at 342, it later confirmed, see Trial Transcript [D.E. 209] at 10, that it did not believe that defense counsel’s proffered reason for the strike of JMD was genuine. On this record, that finding of pretext was not clearly erroneous.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798151. Public record. Not legal advice.