prosecutor “ ‘wanted a balanced jury’ ” and thus “ ‘wanted some white people on the jury’ ” (emphasis omitted)
How later courts described this case
- prosecutor “ ‘wanted a balanced jury’ ” and thus “ ‘wanted some white people on the jury’ ” (emphasis omitted)
- prosecutor '"wanted a balanced jury"' and thus '"wanted some white people on the jury'" (some emphasis omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
The majority recognizes in its opinion that "this court has stated that when a reason, although suspect, is accompanied by a nonracial reason, the strike of the prospective juror does not violate Batson. Williams v. State , 627 So.2d 985
(Ala.Cr.App. 1991), on rehearing, 627 So.2d 994
(Ala.Cr.App. 1992); Clark v. State , 621 So.2d 309
(Ala.Cr.App. 1992)." 665 So.2d at 980. Although the prosecutor gave some race-neutral reasons for his strikes, the majority concludes that because the prosecutor mentioned that race also was a factor in his decision in making some of those strikes, a per se Batson violation occurred. I believe that when the state or a defendant provides a race-neutral reason for striking a juror in addition to a reason that is not race-neutral, the trial court should, as it did here, disregard the reason that is not race-neutral. If indeed the other reasons are race-neutral, then the strike should be upheld. I cannot say that the trial judge's decision on this matter was clearly erroneous. Ex parte Bankhead , 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala. 1993); Ex parte Branch , 526 So.2d 609 , 625-26 (Ala. 1987). For this reason, I dissent. *Page 982