finding that the fact that judgments in cases tried by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office had 88 CR-21-0109 been reversed on four occasions for violating Batson, coupled with other factors, "supports the defendants' contentions and raises an inference of discriminatory intent"
How later courts described this case
- finding that the fact that judgments in cases tried by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office had 88 CR-21-0109 been reversed on four occasions for violating Batson, coupled with other factors, "supports the defendants' contentions and raises an inference of discriminatory intent"
- finding that, because judgments in cases tried by the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office had been reversed on four occasions for violating Batson, coupled with other factors "supports the defendants' contentions and raises an inference of discriminatory intent"
- stating that where the reasons are facially race neutral, however, a weak or non-existent prima facie case weighs against the finding of pretext
- wherein the Alabama Supreme Court noted that where a prosecutor gave "communication difficulty" as a reason for the exclusion of a veniremember, such an explanation may be subject to abuse because of its "insusceptibility to an objective evaluation by the trial judge"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur with Justice Adams's opinion as to its holding that the State violated the principle of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). I concur in the result as to the holding that Powers v. Ohio , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), gives Bird standing to raise the Batson issue as a matter of federal constitutional law. I do not base my decision in this issue on any interpretation or application of Alabama law.
SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.